What is your take on capitis diminutio maxima & maritime law. Also, quote by Col. House.

[tommyrp12]

who said we agreed humans are created equal?

we don't have to agree its self evident. sperm+ egg = baby.

 

[PRB]

we don't have to agree its self evident. sperm+ egg = baby.

what is self evident? That tall people are equal to short people? that Einstein is equal to the kid in special education? that NBA players are equal to crippled people who park in handicap reserved parking?

 

[PRB]

im following the non aggression principal, if someone is trying to kill you, you have a right to self defense ,so do ALL other human beings .

that's nice, you're following it, I'm not, so you can't force that on me by your own logic.

 

[tommyrp12]

that's nice, you're following it, I'm not, so you can't force that on me by your own logic.

no one said I'm trying to force anything on you, like I said make all the rules ,statutes, regulation you want , just don't try to force your rules on me, that's all.

 

[tommyrp12]

what is self evident? That tall people are equal to short people? that Einstein is equal to the kid in special education? that NBA players are equal to crippled people who park in handicap reserved parking?

its more how you would view and treat people. they all have the same rights in my opinion and are deserving of the same treatment.

 

[Acala]

it sounds like a presumption that can be corrected on the record before hand.

No, it can't. Your actual consent is not required. Your presence or activity in the jurisdiction is sufficient for a court to exercise authority over you.

you have not addressed exactly how human trafficking was a enumerated power that people who were created equal could give to the government.

I have no idea what this means. But to begin with, the issue of enumerated powers only arises in the context of the Federal government. State governments have plenary power.

Also I think you are confusing what the law actually is, and what the law should be based on ideas of individual sovereignty. Courts will recognize the former and not the later, so any idea that you can somehow successfully assert the later in court is a loser. As is the idea that buried somewhere in arcane legal opinions is a secret key that unlocks freedom. It ain't there.

 

[tommyrp12]

No, it can't. Your actual consent is not required. Your presence or activity in the jurisdiction is sufficient for a court to exercise authority over you.

LOL, but I know submitting instead of asserting your rights would make you more likely to end up in jail. There is two ways to do things in this world by consent or by force. eliminate the presumption that you have contracted or surrendered your rights and they have no standing, so how can they force you to perform ?

I even had a person drop charges against me,then had the state immediately pick them up in the same trial, and watched my treasonous bastard attorney sit there and smile with no help offered. I was asked if I would surrender my rights, then I said I guess so because I was nervous and had no clue what I was doing at the time, but then they found without a ruling, which to this day I have not found the definition of it. my question is if they could force us into cells,and she could have done anything at that point because I was in her jurisdiction , why would they even bother asking ?

That's my experience.

while I appreciate your conviction that theres no escape the legalese black hole, they asked for consent, why?

I have no idea what this means. But to begin with, the issue of enumerated powers only arises in the context of the Federal government. State governments have plenary power

Also I think you are confusing what the law actually is, and what the law should be based on ideas of individual sovereignty. Courts will recognize the former and not the later, so any idea that you can somehow successfully assert the later in court is a loser. As is the idea that buried somewhere in arcane legal opinions is a secret key that unlocks freedom. It ain't there.

so basicly if you had a gang and paid them to take peoples freedom or biological property for money ,that's human trafficking. the uniforms do not matter they are committing that crime as their job. there is no power for any individual to do that lawfully ,then their is no way we could confer that power onto a government state or federal. so this is not really a abstraction of what the law should be , there is a crime called human trafficking they do it every day. its either a crime or its not.

as far as the power of the state goes, I am not owned by it, I was not created by it,i am not its property just the registered name on the birth certificate is and I have no trust with any of them. you should check out that strawman video again.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

they asked for consent, why?

Because they were asking you if you wished to waive certain legal rights you have. Rights which they respect. Rights they acknowledge to exist.

 

[tommyrp12]

that makes them benefits not rights, and that's a result of a contract or constructive trust and not that they are nice people and give me the benefit of the doubt it operates on presumption, they certainly don't respect your natural rights like free association or owning yourself. they make money off of putting you in a cage and or possibly killing you in the street, that's trafficking of human beings.

The constitution is a trust for the signors and their posterity and anyone taking a oath to it . they get to make whatever rules they want for all of those people. not me. I didn't sign it and I don't have a oath to it ,I don't have trust in any of their agents. I never consented to any of it. its simply a corporation to manage their estate for their benefit, not ours, and its by de-facto means.
you guys surprise me you don't understand property rights ? hint, they are rights of use and come from their creator. they might of created a jurisdiction but they did not create me. which means they are way out of line if it was not obvious enough.

 

[Acala]

that makes them benefits not rights, and that's a result of a contract or constructive trust and not that they are nice people and give me the benefit of the doubt it operates on presumption, they certainly don't respect your natural rights like free association or owning yourself. they make money off of putting you in a cage and or possibly killing you in the street, that's trafficking of human beings.

The constitution is a trust for the signors and their posterity and anyone taking a oath to it . they get to make whatever rules they want for all of those people. not me. I didn't sign it and I don't have a oath to it ,I don't have trust in any of their agents. I never consented to any of it. its simply a corporation to manage their estate for their benefit, not ours, and its by de-facto means.
you guys surprise me you don't understand property rights ? hint, they are rights of use and come from their creator. they might of created a jurisdiction but they did not create me. which means they are way out of line if it was not obvious enough.

I guess I still don't understand your point. If you are saying that the basis of government as it exists today is wrong, you are not going to get an argument from me. I agree. But if you are saying that you can effectively defend yourself from the government as it exists today by invoking some of the doctrines you, and the folks in the video, are talking about, I believe to a very high degree of certainty that you are absolutely wrong.

 

[osan]

But if you are saying that you can effectively defend yourself from the government as it exists today by invoking some of the doctrines you, and the folks in the video, are talking about, I believe to a very high degree of certainty that you are absolutely wrong.

I, too, am suspicious of this. And yet, I have now viewed a fair number of posted videos that depict behaviors and outcomes that APPEAR to be consistent with the general ideas in question and seem to be otherwise inexplicable. I watched one where, when questioned about jurisdiction the judge promptly freaked out, called a recess, and shot out of the courtroom as if someone had hammered a thermonuclear dildo up her backside. Honestly, it was bizarre.

I can now claim to have seen several dozens of similarly inexplicable occurrences. Would you submit that these were all staged? I will not call that impossible, but is it really so? I am not saying one way or another how valid any of this is, but there appears to be a little too much smoke for there to me no fire of which to speak.

People like Helmuth who dismiss this offhand or based apparently on the dismissive assessment of someone like Harry Browne are free to do so, but that does not make them right. Doesn't make them wrong, either. It provides ZERO basis, however, for concluding that the ideas under consideration are nonsense. Space flight did not seem very likely 100 years ago, and yet it is now almost routine. One must be very careful when dismissing something - ANYTHING - as categorically impossible or otherwise false.

Bear in mind that IF these issues are not baloney, it would seem to strongly follow that Theye would hold a powerful interest in making certain that the mundane remains ignorant of the ties that bind even Theire hands. Bear also in mind that in this time of rank and rife cynicism it has become infinitely easy to believe that NOTHING binds Theire prerogatives. But what if that is not true? What if Theye are in fact bound by law, rules, and formal procedure? Theye appear to be so when functioning under "normal" and common court procedure, which only makes sense because were they not, utter chaos would stand to erupt as every judge would be free to run his court will nilly. Yet we see a strong discipline in the uniformity of procedure - not perfect, but far and away more so than mere chance would even remotely suggest. That means they ARE bound by rules and law, no matter how despotically intentioned they may otherwise be. Now ask yourself, "why?" If, as some here suggest, the law is anything Theye say it is, why would they have not by now and under the current conditions of nearly bald-faced authoritarianism loosened the ties that bind their own hands pursuant to a greater exercise of power? Appearances COULD be a reason, but it seems an unlikely one un a nation whose central government is buying billions of rounds of ammo, armored vehicles, and passing draconian legislation left and right. Consider the role the courts play in all of this. Why have they not visibly loosened their own fetters as have the legislature and the executive? All else aside, you must agree that this is a rather curious phenomenon.

These apparent and in some ways glaring inconsistencies with the other branches lead me question appearances as they now exist. The passing strange behaviors I have witnessed in some courts also have my attention. Again, barring a considerably sized conspiracy to populate youtube with misleading videos - and I do not dismiss this as a very real and perhaps even likely possibility - I have born witness to far too many instances of judicial behavior and outcomes to yet dismiss the notion of Capitis Diminution Maximus as invalid.

Now consider this: extant law is either constant in its meaning or it is not. If it is not, it has no validity, for how could it be if its meaning becomes fluid? Even dull people would see the problems with this and Theye would be in a pickle whereupon they were forced into either admitting Theire lack of authority due to arbitrariness or becoming openly despotic. In either case Theye lose power and assume vast risk. Rule by willing compliance is ALWAYS vastly preferable to rule by ubiquitously open violence. In any such confrontations one ALWAYS risks losing and Theye never want to assume any more of that than is absolutely necessary, all else equal. Make no mistake about that.

Given this, if a given law holds its ORIGINAL meaning, but its practical application has wandered away from that meaning due to fashion or convenience of for any reason innocent or malevolent, and if we further assume that Theye want to maintain the status quo because current practice facilitates their exercise of power more to their satisfaction than would their compliance with the original meaning of a given law, then it would behoove them in no uncertain terms to make damned certain that the original meaning remained latent to mundane eyes. This would very neatly explain why some of these judges wig out when the status quo is competently challenged upon their vessels. They do not expect this, perhaps have never encountered it, and therefore scramble to nip it in the bud, perhaps with some awkward transparency. Why else would a judge clear a courtroom - examples of which you can readily find on youtube, as well as sudden and summary dismissals of charges that otherwise make absolutely no sense whatsoever to me. If you can explain them to me in a complete, comprehensive, authoritative, truthful, and convincing manner, I would be thankful and most willing to come to a different understanding of the matter more in line with your own stated opinions.

So let us summarize this. Law either has meaning or it does not. Assuming the former, its meaning is either constant or fluid. If the latter, then the definition of "law" converges with that of "opinion" and thereby carries with it less than zero authority. If the former, then judges are bound by their oaths to uphold it, yet is is abundantly clear to anyone nominally brain-active, honest, and paying attention that at least as often as not they don't. The laws of CDM either exist or they do not. It appears certain that they do in fact exist and are still "on the books", so to speak. If so, and they are constant in their meanings and legitimate effects and judges are bound by oath to uphold them according to the orginal meanings but in practice do not, they do so either knowingly or out of incompetence. In either case, having become knowledgeable of their own failure to fulfill their oaths, a grave offense against the public trust and the Law itself, it is no great leap to infer that such persons would hold the strongest possible personal interest in ensuring that the mundane remains ignorant of this fact. When they encounter a prole who is nominally capable of standing his RIGHTFUL ground before a courtroom full of witnesses and possibly cameras, they are most likely to see it as being in their own best interest to whisk the threat away through rapid and unequivocal dismissal WITH PREJUDICE to ensure that that particular torpedo cannot ever come back at them. Does this make sense?

It appears I have, by whatever providence, managed by argument to box the issue into a rather neatly tight corner. I may be wrong, and am willing to be demonstrated so, but I think I have managed to set the essence of this discussion into the clearest possible light. The only task remaining is to determine the few issues whose truth values are yet to be predicated.

Finally, bear in mind that courts are utterly dependent upon credibility in order for them to be able to function in the longer run. Yes, they also use force, but remember that historically speaking, the imprudently gratuitous use of threats and violence in the longer term has not worked out well for Themme. We are many and Theye are few. Granted, Theye now possess technological levers of vast power that did not exist even 50 years ago, but to run head-first against the mob as the common low-rent despot of yore did still carries with it tremendous risk and I do believe that at the core of things Theye are cowards of the lowest order. Being sly, cunning, and treacherous through the employ of third party bully boys does not make one brave in the least measure. It only makes one sly, cunning, and treacherous without bottom.

 

[tommyrp12]

more on the CQV trust.

If a Trust can't drive a car then why are you suing my Trust

 

[PRB]

more on the CQV trust.

If a Trust can't drive a car then why are you suing my Trust

You're asking a strawman question (intentionally, no pun intended), nobody except sovereign citizen conspiracy theorists say that the Trust is being sued, a person with a name is being sued, and the person is able to drive the car, being clever about claiming you are the beneficiary of the trust or the name in all caps is somehow not you yourself, doesn't hold up in a court (but ironically, these people seem to think they've broken the code, would be nice if they actually won a case)

 

[Acala]

I, too, am suspicious of this. And yet, I have now viewed a fair number of posted videos that depict behaviors and outcomes that APPEAR to be consistent with the general ideas in question and seem to be otherwise inexplicable. I watched one where, when questioned about jurisdiction the judge promptly freaked out, called a recess, and shot out of the courtroom as if someone had hammered a thermonuclear dildo up her backside. Honestly, it was bizarre.

I can now claim to have seen several dozens of similarly inexplicable occurrences. Would you submit that these were all staged? I will not call that impossible, but is it really so? I am not saying one way or another how valid any of this is, but there appears to be a little too much smoke for there to me no fire of which to speak.

People like Helmuth who dismiss this offhand or based apparently on the dismissive assessment of someone like Harry Browne are free to do so, but that does not make them right. Doesn't make them wrong, either. It provides ZERO basis, however, for concluding that the ideas under consideration are nonsense. Space flight did not seem very likely 100 years ago, and yet it is now almost routine. One must be very careful when dismissing something - ANYTHING - as categorically impossible or otherwise false.

Bear in mind that IF these issues are not baloney, it would seem to strongly follow that Theye would hold a powerful interest in making certain that the mundane remains ignorant of the ties that bind even Theire hands. Bear also in mind that in this time of rank and rife cynicism it has become infinitely easy to believe that NOTHING binds Theire prerogatives. But what if that is not true? What if Theye are in fact bound by law, rules, and formal procedure? Theye appear to be so when functioning under "normal" and common court procedure, which only makes sense because were they not, utter chaos would stand to erupt as every judge would be free to run his court will nilly. Yet we see a strong discipline in the uniformity of procedure - not perfect, but far and away more so than mere chance would even remotely suggest. That means they ARE bound by rules and law, no matter how despotically intentioned they may otherwise be. Now ask yourself, "why?" If, as some here suggest, the law is anything Theye say it is, why would they have not by now and under the current conditions of nearly bald-faced authoritarianism loosened the ties that bind their own hands pursuant to a greater exercise of power? Appearances COULD be a reason, but it seems an unlikely one un a nation whose central government is buying billions of rounds of ammo, armored vehicles, and passing draconian legislation left and right. Consider the role the courts play in all of this. Why have they not visibly loosened their own fetters as have the legislature and the executive? All else aside, you must agree that this is a rather curious phenomenon.

These apparent and in some ways glaring inconsistencies with the other branches lead me question appearances as they now exist. The passing strange behaviors I have witnessed in some courts also have my attention. Again, barring a considerably sized conspiracy to populate youtube with misleading videos - and I do not dismiss this as a very real and perhaps even likely possibility - I have born witness to far too many instances of judicial behavior and outcomes to yet dismiss the notion of Capitis Diminution Maximus as invalid.

Now consider this: extant law is either constant in its meaning or it is not. If it is not, it has no validity, for how could it be if its meaning becomes fluid? Even dull people would see the problems with this and Theye would be in a pickle whereupon they were forced into either admitting Theire lack of authority due to arbitrariness or becoming openly despotic. In either case Theye lose power and assume vast risk. Rule by willing compliance is ALWAYS vastly preferable to rule by ubiquitously open violence. In any such confrontations one ALWAYS risks losing and Theye never want to assume any more of that than is absolutely necessary, all else equal. Make no mistake about that.

Given this, if a given law holds its ORIGINAL meaning, but its practical application has wandered away from that meaning due to fashion or convenience of for any reason innocent or malevolent, and if we further assume that Theye want to maintain the status quo because current practice facilitates their exercise of power more to their satisfaction than would their compliance with the original meaning of a given law, then it would behoove them in no uncertain terms to make damned certain that the original meaning remained latent to mundane eyes. This would very neatly explain why some of these judges wig out when the status quo is competently challenged upon their vessels. They do not expect this, perhaps have never encountered it, and therefore scramble to nip it in the bud, perhaps with some awkward transparency. Why else would a judge clear a courtroom - examples of which you can readily find on youtube, as well as sudden and summary dismissals of charges that otherwise make absolutely no sense whatsoever to me. If you can explain them to me in a complete, comprehensive, authoritative, truthful, and convincing manner, I would be thankful and most willing to come to a different understanding of the matter more in line with your own stated opinions.

So let us summarize this. Law either has meaning or it does not. Assuming the former, its meaning is either constant or fluid. If the latter, then the definition of "law" converges with that of "opinion" and thereby carries with it less than zero authority. If the former, then judges are bound by their oaths to uphold it, yet is is abundantly clear to anyone nominally brain-active, honest, and paying attention that at least as often as not they don't. The laws of CDM either exist or they do not. It appears certain that they do in fact exist and are still "on the books", so to speak. If so, and they are constant in their meanings and legitimate effects and judges are bound by oath to uphold them according to the orginal meanings but in practice do not, they do so either knowingly or out of incompetence. In either case, having become knowledgeable of their own failure to fulfill their oaths, a grave offense against the public trust and the Law itself, it is no great leap to infer that such persons would hold the strongest possible personal interest in ensuring that the mundane remains ignorant of this fact. When they encounter a prole who is nominally capable of standing his RIGHTFUL ground before a courtroom full of witnesses and possibly cameras, they are most likely to see it as being in their own best interest to whisk the threat away through rapid and unequivocal dismissal WITH PREJUDICE to ensure that that particular torpedo cannot ever come back at them. Does this make sense?

It appears I have, by whatever providence, managed by argument to box the issue into a rather neatly tight corner. I may be wrong, and am willing to be demonstrated so, but I think I have managed to set the essence of this discussion into the clearest possible light. The only task remaining is to determine the few issues whose truth values are yet to be predicated.

Finally, bear in mind that courts are utterly dependent upon credibility in order for them to be able to function in the longer run. Yes, they also use force, but remember that historically speaking, the imprudently gratuitous use of threats and violence in the longer term has not worked out well for Themme. We are many and Theye are few. Granted, Theye now possess technological levers of vast power that did not exist even 50 years ago, but to run head-first against the mob as the common low-rent despot of yore did still carries with it tremendous risk and I do believe that at the core of things Theye are cowards of the lowest order. Being sly, cunning, and treacherous through the employ of third party bully boys does not make one brave in the least measure. It only makes one sly, cunning, and treacherous without bottom.

Judges are people. they are often very busy people. They can get annoyed and impatient, especially with minor offenders who represent themselves, take up tons of court time, and make no sense. They will sometimes just let someone go rather than deal with the headache. It is also possible that judges can be embarrassed by questions they can't understand. But I absolutely assure you there is no secret body of law that has judges terrified. If there was, Congress would simply change it. That's what Congress does.

 

[PRB]

Judges are people. they are often very busy people. They can get annoyed and impatient, especially with minor offenders who represent themselves, take up tons of court time, and make no sense. They will sometimes just let someone go rather than deal with the headache. It is also possible that judges can be embarrassed by questions they can't understand. But I absolutely assure you there is no secret body of law that has judges terrified. If there was, Congress would simply change it. That's what Congress does.

Conspiracy theorist argument : look, I got away with this! That proves it worked!

Challenge : Try getting away with something big.

Conspiracy theorist : Why would I want to do that? That doesn't benefit me.

Response : Ok, so all you proved was, at some point, sometimes, the government compromsies and rather save time and resources when they have better fish to fry, you didn't prove you're able to undermine the government's authority, or if you did, you might've proved the government will go lengths to prove a point, neither of which, say much.

 

[CPUd]

They like to post videos, but if you trace the videos back far enough, you will always find someone selling tax evasion documents. I don't like to argue against someone's faith, because that is what this is, but if you try to use this stuff in court, eventually:

- they will take everything you own
- they will lock you up.

Judges are people. they are often very busy people. They can get annoyed and impatient, especially with minor offenders who represent themselves, take up tons of court time, and make no sense. They will sometimes just let someone go rather than deal with the headache. It is also possible that judges can be embarrassed by questions they can't understand. But I absolutely assure you there is no secret body of law that has judges terrified. If there was, Congress would simply change it. That's what Congress does.

You are correct on all counts. At first, some of these judges think they are dealing with someone mentally impaired, and try to give some leeway, but when enough of them show up in the courtroom, it becomes clear that this is a problem that needs to be addressed. A judge in Canada has seen enough of it that he used one such case as a means to essentially write the book on what he calls "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument, " or OPCA litigants. It is exhaustive, and provides a legal basis via relevant case law for rejection of every claim an OPCA has made in their court system:

I. Introduction to Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [“OPCA”] Litigants



[1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels - there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants [“OPCA litigants”], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are. These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.



[2] Over a decade of reported cases have proven that the individual concepts advanced by OPCA litigants are invalid. What remains is to categorize these schemes and concepts, identify global defects to simplify future response to variations of identified and invalid OPCA themes, and develop court procedures and sanctions for persons who adopt and advance these vexatious litigation strategies.



[3] One participant in this matter, the Respondent Dennis Larry Meads, appears to be a sophisticated and educated person, but is also an OPCA litigant. One of the purposes of these Reasons is, through this litigant, to uncover, expose, collate, and publish the tactics employed by the OPCA community, as a part of a process to eradicate the growing abuse that these litigants direct towards the justice and legal system we otherwise enjoy in Alberta and across Canada. I will respond on a point-by-point basis to the broad spectrum of OPCA schemes, concepts, and arguments advanced in this action by Mr. Meads.



[4] OPCA litigants do not express any stereotypic beliefs other than a general rejection of court and state authority; nor do they fall into any common social or professional association. Arguments and claims of this nature emerge in all kinds of legal proceedings and all levels of Courts and tribunals. This group is unified by:



1. a characteristic set of strategies (somewhat different by group) that they employ,



2. specific but irrelevant formalities and language which they appear to believe are (or portray as) significant, and



3. the commercial sources from which their ideas and materials originate.



This category of litigant shares one other critical characteristic: they will only honour state, regulatory, contract, family, fiduciary, equitable, and criminal obligations if they feel like it. And typically, they don’t.



[5] The Meads case illustrates many characteristic features of OPCA materials, in court conduct, and litigation strategies. These Reasons will, therefore, explain my June 8, 2012 decision and provide analysis and reasoning that is available for reference and application to other similar proceedings.



[6] Naturally, my conclusions are important for these parties. However, they also are intended to assist others, who have been taken in/duped by gurus, to realize that these practices are entirely ineffective; to empower opposing parties and their counsel to take action; and as a warning to gurus that the Court will not tolerate their misconduct.



[7] As a preliminary note, I will throughout these Reasons refer to persons by their ‘normal’ names, except to illustrate various OPCA motifs and concepts. OPCA litigants frequently adopt unusual variations on personal names, for example adding irrelevant punctuation, or using unusual capital and lower case character combinations. While OPCA litigants and their gurus put special significance on these alternative nomenclature forms, these are ineffectual in law and are meaningless paper masks. Therefore, in these Reasons, I will omit spurious name forms, titles, punctuation and the like.

http://www.canlii.ca/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html

tl;dr: it is all bullshit.

 

[tommyrp12]

You're asking a strawman question (intentionally, no pun intended), nobody except sovereign citizen conspiracy theorists say that the Trust is being sued, a person with a name is being sued, and the person is able to drive the car, being clever about claiming you are the beneficiary of the trust or the name in all caps is somehow not you yourself, doesn't hold up in a court (but ironically, these people seem to think they've broken the code, would be nice if they actually won a case)

why couldn't he just give the kid a straight answer instead of luring him into actual court to get in personam jurisdiction. what would he need a ID for you think someone else is going to volunteer to show up for him especially if the person maybe even got a summons by mistake about a issue they don't know about I would think that people would just say they made a mistake and throw it away ,not show up on the date.

 

[tommyrp12]

They like to post videos, but if you trace the videos back far enough, you will always find someone selling tax evasion documents. I don't like to argue against someone's faith, because that is what this is, but if you try to use this stuff in court, eventually:

- they will take everything you own
- they will lock you up.




You are correct on all counts. At first, some of these judges think they are dealing with someone mentally impaired, and try to give some leeway, but when enough of them show up in the courtroom, it becomes clear that this is a problem that needs to be addressed. A judge in Canada has seen enough of it that he used one such case as a means to essentially write the book on what he calls "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument, " or OPCA litigants. It is exhaustive, and provides a legal basis via relevant case law for rejection of every claim an OPCA has made in their court system:



http://www.canlii.ca/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html

tl;dr: it is all bullshit.

well perhaps a judge has had people that did not know what they were doing stand in front of him,and instead of addressing something that might expose him criminally and get a charge like treason ,he chose to believe there was sufficient reason to conflate the arguments and slap a label on them so he did not have address them.

ahhh here it is

[65] No Canadian court has accepted an OPCA concept or approach as valid. This part of the decision identifies a common basis to reject these ideas as a category: they directly attack the inherent jurisdiction of Canadian courts. That fact is also a basis for why OPCA schemes are inherently vexatious, and provide evidence that may potentially lead to orders for contempt of court. Remedies for OPCA litigation and litigation strategies are reviewed.



Summary and Direction



[66] There is no place in Canadian courts for anyone who advances OPCA concepts. The last part of these Reasons suggests how judges, lawyers, and litigants may respond to persons who adopt and advance th ese concepts. I also comment directly to those in the OPCA community - both gurus and their followers - with the hope that these Reasons will lead them to more productive and successful interaction with the courts, government, and their fellow citizens.

[72] Beyond that, these are little more than scams that abuse legal processes. As this Court now recognizes that these schemes are intended for that purpose, a strict approach is appropriate when the Court responds to persons who purposefully say they stand outside the rules and law, or who intend to abuse, disrupt, and ultimately break the legal processes that govern conduct in Canada. The persons who advance these schemes, and particularly those who market and sell these concepts as commercial products, are parasites that must be stopped.

boo freeaaaking hoooooo, someone is questioning his authoritaaaaaay. im seeing nothing more than incompetent litigants and ad hominem from the judge you cant contract with the state (marriage license) then say they have no authority, that is dumb, they petitioned the court to resolve the issue not the other way around.
eliminate the presumption that you intend to do business or contract and its apparent you don't want anything to do with them then act upon presentments from the state's agents as they come. notice to agent is notice to principal and vice versa.thats why ignorance of the law is no excuse its all public notice.but they cant be ignorant of your rights and when you establish and make them public notice also clearing up what your jurisdiction/state you are in and who has the right to determine that helps.

if im a person and don t have the authority to make my own jurisdiction neither did the founders except they killed everyone that was here and in their way so there was not much arguing after that. which is why I keep mentioning that its de facto law. its getting pretty frustrating trying to get these ideas across people are either created equal with the same rights or they are not, I cant find one single explanation that elevates a legislature a group of men, to gods that can govern over people that don't consent , they cant, they can only govern over their own creations those constructive trusts in all caps further it does not make sense to argue when they charge it, correct the record, if you have been keeping and publishing yours they cant throw it out , they have theirs now see if it matches ,just prevent the fraud. courts are courts of record so its my belief that's what they stand on, that's my comprehension from what I have read anyway .



Ill read more of that article, its pretty entertaining.

 

[CPUd]

well perhaps a judge has had people that did not know what they were doing stand in front of him,and instead of addressing something that might expose him criminally and get a charge like treason ,he chose to believe there was sufficient reason to conflate the arguments and slap a label on them so he did not have address them.

He addressed every single claim that was made (some of which are also trying to be made in this thread); in fact, I've never seen a set of arguments so thoroughly destroyed.

 

[tommyrp12]

taxes are voluntary so you wont get a argument from me that they can be avoided once you already incurred the obligation. I sense the judge knew this and then proceeded to bring up strawman cases to convince us there is no escape. I know how you incur the obligation ,its on the back of your checks. unfortunately you cant have any FRN's if you are not a trustee of the bank. there is remedy to this too but ill digress for now since I have not done enough research but its coming together nicely.