News:

this is a news item (test)

Main Menu

A statute is defined as.....

Started by GaryTheMentalist, June 30, 2010, 05:49:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

GaryTheMentalist

removed

M O'D

1.
QuoteWe met with a solicitor who flatly stated that if K continues to go down the freeman route with the court he will definitely get a custodial sentence.  If he pleads guilty he'll probably get six months, if he pleads guilty and expresses the appropriate remorse (whatever the hell that is) he might get off without a custodial sentence.

What is the solicitor basing this on - common practice? Hearsay? What does said solicitor actually know about the so-called 'freeman route'? how many has he seen walking it?

2.
QuoteAfter all it is clear to me that any business that tries to exert any authority over me bloody well does require my consent.

Exactly. We have free will (or at least the illusion of it). We may be aggressively forced into a contractual relation with someone but the act of force voids it - this is true in Common Law and Commercial Law. Look up the maxims in Bouviers for further info.

3.
QuoteHowever, it is not clear to me that TPTB are going to entertain that argument if it is not backed by an authority that they recognise and if TPTB are not prepared to entertain our arguments, nor accept their validity, then are they worth the paper they're written on?  It's all very well saying 'it feels true' or 'it resonates as the truth', both of which I have said in the past but if our feelings and resonances end up with us being incarcerated then in what way can we describe ourselves as free?

A sovereign is his own authority, second only to the Divine creator, and he has to be prepared to step into his sovereignty.

For more research into this, you may wish to try marc stevens, http://marcstevens.net/ here are some quotes from him, some of which have been used to simply obliterate the opposition in court:
QuoteMarc Stevens quotes and law power questions.

"A 'law' is the 'written will' of men and women."

"The law is nothing more than an opinion or belief by one man, or a body of men, backed by violence and a gun."

"Violence is the means by which the irrational get the rational to act."

"A 'government' is a body of men and women doing business using physical violence and coercion under the political banner of 'necessity.' "

Ask the judge: "What facts are currently before you proving where, when, why and how the written will of individuals, ostensibly labelled 'legislators,' became applicable, binding or obligatory on me?"

"How is an 'act of parliament' a complaining party? What obligation do I owe, and how did I damage an alleged 'act of parliament?' "

"The 'state' is not a natural phenomenon. It is man-made and exists only in the mind."

Whether the 'law' is binding or not is really a 'jurisdiction' issue; so ask "Except for coercion, exactly where, when, why and how was your control over my life acquired?"

"It is far more effective to ask a judge: "Explain factually where, when, why and how your so-called 'jurisdiction' over me was acquired?"

"Is your jurisdiction based on my consent?"

Ask a judge: "Do you equate violence and coercion with fairness and good faith?"

"Everything being used against you is supposed to be subject to challenge."

"Using so-called 'evidence' not subject to challenge is not a trial in any sense of the word."

"If I have to accept opinions without challenge then what is the point of having a trial under any circumstances?"

"The testimony of a witness concerning a particular matter is inadmissable unless he has personal knowledge of the matter."

"Is this civil case in the nature of a contract dispute or a tort?"

"A so-called 'civil' cause of action can only fall into one of two categories: contract or tort."

"There must be a 'meeting of the minds' for there to be a contract. For an enforceable contract to exist there must be: offer, acceptance, consideration and sufficient specifications of terms so that obligations involved can be ascertained." - Savoca Masonary Co., Inc. v Homes * Son Const. Co., Inc.

"For a valid contract dispute to exist there must be evidence of both a loss and a wrong (to bring a cause of action)."

"For there to be a cause of action there must be both: 1) the breach of a duty and, 2) actual damages."

"A 'cause of action' is a breach of known 'legal' duty (right of life, liberty or property) that results in injury, loss or harm."

"A cause of action is supposed to require the breach of duty resulting in damage."

Ask the judge: "Is there evidence of a cause of action against me?"

Ask the judge: "What facts are his ''legal' opinions based on?"

"A 'tort' consists of two elements: the breach of a duty and damage."

"Are there any allegations of damage here?"

"There are no binding 'rules' for bureaucrats because they just don't follow the 'rules' - until you sue."

" 'Traffic court' is a matter of obedience, domination and money, not a matter of safety, fairness and justice."

"It is a fantasy to think people are damaged if I don't have I.D. on me."

"Violence is the modus operandi of bureaucrats. Just imagine what compliance would be like if they could not use violence."

"Force cannot give right." - Thomas Jefferson.

"Bureaucrats don't create value, they only take it."

"Bureaucrats feed off the productive."

Ask a bureaucrat if they require your permission to 'proceed' against you."

"Bureaucrats in the geographic area known as the 'United States' or 'Australia' put a pretence of legitimacy."

"This pretence, or public relations scheme conceals what is really going on: the taking of money, property and productive time through coercion and violence."

"Political words and opinions are used so there is a perception that politicians and bureaucrats are a wonderful, benevolent group of men and women 'protecting' people and their property."

"No man's life, liberty and property are safe while the legislature is in session" - Mark Twain.

"In 'Legal Land' a political label magically transforms robbery into something 'honourable.' It's a magical word where facts are opinions and opinions are facts."

"Reality = facts. Additions, deletions and distortions = opinions/beliefs."

"Every time a politician or bureaucrat spews forth an opinion or belief he is deleting, distorting and, or adding to reality."

" 'Legal Land' words cover up the real issue and distort reality. That reality is someone is taking your money and property through physical violence, threats and organized coercion."

"When you assume or accept presumptions and opinions (delete, distort, add to reality), you relieve the bureaucrats of their alleged burden of proof and make the taking of your valuable time and money easier for them."

"The only real difference between what the men and women doing business as the ATO do, and what a common thief does is the political opinion (label) attached, i.e. one is 'legal' and the other is not."

"If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized." - Lysander Spooner. Letter to Grover Cleveland.

"What is the basis for the alleged "power to tax"? It's the so-called "constitution." The "constitution" is unsigned pieces of paper. If there is an alleged "obligation", then it must be based on the "constitution." What facts are there to prove those pieces of paper created this alleged "obligation"? If you think there are facts to prove an "obligation" to pay "taxes" exists, then factually prove it."

"What will those anti-social parasites (politicians & bureaucrats) do when millions of people just decide not to file anymore? When millions of people start working for themselves and refuse to aid in the robbery of their fellow man's money by acting as "withholding agents?" Imagine millions of people refusing to help rape and plunder their fellow man by "issuing" those stupid GST and income tax return forms."

"For those who think "governments" are "necessary", let me ask this question, it's a yes or no answer only. Should a service or product be provided using coercion or at the barrel of a gun? Unless you're a psychopath, the answer is no. And that is how "governments" operate. Instead of bringing their talents and services to the market like normal people, they provide them on a violent 'pay us or get fined, imprisoned or shot' basis."

"Having courts, lawyers and opinions does nothing to make robbery any less of a crime."

"It is undeniable a so-called "Supreme Court justice" is just a lawyer. Do the lawyers pretending to be a "Supreme Court" provide their services on a voluntary basis? Of course not; if you don't pay their salary you are fined, imprisoned and, or have your property stolen. Now, is it reasonable to trust someone who thinks you should be fined or imprisoned for not paying a lawyer you never hired?"

"Political voting accomplishes nothing productive and only gives legitimacy to a gang of killers, thieves and liars; men and women incapable or unwilling to provide a service people will voluntarily pay for. The people who vote politically have no power because they have no real choice whether or not they want the services provided by government. Political democracy is a scam; it's called a false choice."

"You cannot really 'win' against bureaucrats. It's all about damage control."


"Justice and fairness is not the end goal of bureaucrats. The end goal is domination and taking money and property by force. Their purpose is to steal as much money and property as 'legally' possible, using the least amount of violence and coercion."

"Never give bureaucrats something to deny. By simply agreeing with bureaucrats and asking them to provide the facts their opinions and beliefs are based on sets them up for a fall. Pit the bureaucrat against himself."

"Feed the bureaucrats' testimony back to them in question form and then sit back and watch it fall apart."

There is remedy - I'd suggest you put this message out to other freeman forums too, for there will be guys out there with insights and help for precisely this kind of case. The cause of action route is worth delving into - particularly with the warrant. As we now know, if the warrant is fake, then there is no valid cause of action since no action can arise from fraud.

peace 

Peace.
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

M O'D

#2
consensus facit legem - consent makes law.

You may also wish to research 'consent to be governed'....Hopefully, this will help in the amassing of ammo for the case. Peace.

:o
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

Agven

I often think about what laws are and what rights anyone has to impose them on us.  I am using law statutes and legislation to mean the same thing, here.

Could not consent be defined as a vote given to a party that wins the election and then makes a new law?  So, if a majority of those who vote give their vote to a party, they are giving their consent for that party to enact any law it sees fit to enact.  The people who don't vote are also giving their consent because, by not voting, they are effectively saying that they don't care enough about what laws are enacted or what policies are adopted.  Those who voted against the party that made the new law can argue that they didn't give consent because they didn't vote for them.  But how can they prove they didn't vote for them?

But even those who didn't vote, accept the principle of democracy and the voting system they used - so, that might be construed as consent.  Consent to go along with what the majority (of people who voted) want.

Another thing - why should anyone be subject to an old law?  If a law was made a hundred years ago, no one who consented to it is still alive.  No one alive ever consented to it being passed.

That quote from Marc Stevens:

'The law is nothing more than an opinion or belief by one man, or a body of men, backed by violence and a gun.'

is like something I've been saying for years - that all laws, except laws like the 'laws' of the jungle, physics and genetics, are just opinions and beliefs.  Even the Magna Carta and Common Law.  And the ideas about Rights.  I'm preparing a short article on these ideas.  Not sure which forum to post it in.  I want to generate some debate.