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

[tommyrp12]

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.

 

[osan]

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.

And this lends credence to the notions under consideration. Such questions are asked because they MUST be because it is the law. If they do not, they violate the law and that becomes a point of exposure in appellate action.

Here, read this:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhen...e-pandoras-box-of-progressivism-positive-law/

 

[Wallrat]

I have to go with Helmuth. Why not just realize that we live under an oppressive Police State and be done with it. The idea that some arcane legal knowledge is going to set you free is a pipe dream. Remember Barristers Inn School of Common Law? That was the best of them, IMHO, but still not an answer to what the legal reality is. Anyway, the key to recovering our power lies in a revolution...peacefully, one hopes.

 

[Mini-Me]

Helmuth and Wallrat are right: If it exists at all, it's just an inside joke for a few elites to symbolically demean us with, not any kind of "out" for anyone. As osan said, "If it is [enforced], it is done so silently and in code, which is also consistent with my readings, further thrusting this into the category of diabolical human nonsense."

No judge or government official will never come out and admit capitis diminutio maxima (as least as it's being argued here) and maritime law as legal principles in court, so by the same token, they will never argue that you've waived your rights on those particular grounds (since doing so would violate the secrecy of their inside joke, if it exists at all). Therefore, it's totally pointless jumping through hoops to avoid a legal "gotcha" they will never directly use against you. If they argue you've waived your rights, it's probably for one of the following two reasons:

• You've fallen into a different gotcha, such as actually agreeing to do so at some prior point.
• They're just strong-arming you, because they know (or at least believe) they can get away with ignoring the law entirely.

When you start jumping through hoops to avoid being "trapped" by capitis diminutio maxima, the vast majority of judges and lawyers will either:

• wonder what the heck you're talking about, or
• do some cursory investigation of the argument on a government FAQ before twisting the screw for irritating them with "frivolous" arguments.

Yes, there are instances where you may be able to argue jurisdiction, but it's only likely to work for you in one of the following three situations:

• You're entitled to a jury trial in a court of record, and some judge is trying to slap you with a summary offense in a court not of record. You can get away with correctly arguing this point sometimes because the Bill of Rights is so obviously on your side...but even then, a judge who is tyrannical/audacious/corrupt enough will still just ignore it and slap you with contempt for "wasting their time" or some such authoritarian nonsense.
• You get a judge who's just tired of dealing with procedural technicalities and legalities and wants you out of his/her hair as quickly as possible.
• You get a judge who lets you slide out of pity or good humor.

In short, the truth/lack thereof underlying capitis diminutio maxima and maritime law is irrelevant, because the law does not work like software. The government does not slavishly follow the law to the letter like a duty-bound robot, especially hidden or secret loopholes that kick in with the magic incantation. The government does what it pleases, unless and until you can prove to the judge the law (Constitution, official statutes, case law, etc.) is so strongly and so obviously in your favor that they can't plausibly get away with continuing to break it without shattering their illusion of legitimacy.

 

[tommyrp12]

.....
Maritime Law & Legalese - Meet Your Strawman!

 

[PRB]

As is inevitable, my reading is taking me to the notion that we are chattel and used as collateral.

Been reading about things such as: capitis diminutio maxima, and the maritime law and how we, as birthed thru our mothers womb (water), we are subject to the Maritime Law.

Then further reading from Black's law dictionary, that Human Being is not the same as "person", and thus are not assured equality or ownership of ourselves.

Then.. further reading brought me to Col. House's quote. Which seems strangely honest to be real.

What have you studies/reading led you? Can one be a "freeman" and not pay taxes etc.... or ?

Is the notion that we are collateral via birth "certificate" real?

Just looking for additional insight into those who have dug deeper....

you've been reading too much sovereign citizen crap

 

[tommyrp12]

sounds like you did your homework.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

It's like a whole little parallel world the believers in this have set up for themselves. This kind of thing happens sometimes. People form little parallel realities for themselves. It happens a lot to people sucked into the MLM scene for example, which is where I've seen it. I lived with a guy who was convinced that the founder of his MLM was the owner of Google. I tried to persuade him otherwise. Google is a publicly-owned company, I said. Here's the top stock-holders, I showed him. It was founded by two guys, and your guy wasn't one of them, I explained. What a waste of time. Yahoo Finance was in on the conspiracy, you see. The whole internet was untrustworthy. It had to be. Because his "friend" was trustworthy. And he said he was the owner of Google, so it must be true.

It is really quite pointless to try to yank the person out of it if they don't want to be yanked. And why try? They're happy there. Let them be.

I just try to provide the little voice of sanity to prevent any new people from being sucked in.

 

[PRB]

It's like a whole little parallel world the believers in this have set up for themselves. This kind of thing happens sometimes. People form little parallel realities for themselves. It happens a lot to people sucked into the MLM scene for example, which is where I've seen it. I lived with a guy who was convinced that the founder of his MLM was the owner of Google. I tried to persuade him otherwise. Google is a publicly-owned company, I said. Here's the top stock-holders, I showed him. It was founded by two guys, and your guy wasn't one of them, I explained. What a waste of time. Yahoo Finance was in on the conspiracy, you see. The whole internet was untrustworthy. It had to be. Because his "friend" was trustworthy. And he said he was the owner of Google, so it must be true.

It is really quite pointless to try to yank the person out of it if they don't want to be yanked. And why try? They're happy there. Let them be.

I just try to provide the little voice of sanity to prevent any new people from being sucked in.

Exactly, you can't convince a conspiracy theorist he is wrong, you can find this out by just asking him "What would it take for you to believe you're wrong?"

 

[helmuth_hubener]

All lack of evidence just confirms the conspiracy! Hypotheses based on conspiracy theories prove extremely resilient and difficult to root out.

 

[Acala]

It's like a whole little parallel world the believers in this have set up for themselves. This kind of thing happens sometimes. People form little parallel realities for themselves. It happens a lot to people sucked into the MLM scene for example, which is where I've seen it. I lived with a guy who was convinced that the founder of his MLM was the owner of Google. I tried to persuade him otherwise. Google is a publicly-owned company, I said. Here's the top stock-holders, I showed him. It was founded by two guys, and your guy wasn't one of them, I explained. What a waste of time. Yahoo Finance was in on the conspiracy, you see. The whole internet was untrustworthy. It had to be. Because his "friend" was trustworthy. And he said he was the owner of Google, so it must be true.

It is really quite pointless to try to yank the person out of it if they don't want to be yanked. And why try? They're happy there. Let them be.

I just try to provide the little voice of sanity to prevent any new people from being sucked in.

I hate to bump this thread because these ideas need to die but I can't give you more rep at the moment and I need to applaud this.

Everything you are saying is exactly correct. The "Secret Law" cult is like a communicable mental illness for which some people seem to have a predisposition.

 

[tommyrp12]

While I get the idea of not wanting to associate with the "odd balls" before you go throwing out insults a quick combing over the evidence and it becomes apparent the legal system is a complete fraud. you don't have to theorize about it either. if you care to look at any definition of law their is always a lack of mentioning consent, they do mention common consent but there is no such thing I cant consent for other people and other people cant consent for me ,its here by force ,or de facto means.
Also explain if there is no consent ,how it is not human trafficking for the use and benefit of another.
these are are just obvious examples I can get more detailed but lets work through the obvious ones first.

law noun \ˈlȯ\

: the whole system or set of rules made by the government of a town, state, country, etc.

: a particular kind of law

: a rule made by the government of a town, state, country, etc.


EasyBib

Full Definition of LAW


1

a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : common law

b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : litigation (3) : the agency of or an agent of established law

c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe

d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law

e : control, authority

2

a often capitalized : the revelation of the will of God set forth in the Old Testament

b capitalized : the first part of the Jewish scriptures : pentateuch, torah — see bible table

3

: a rule of construction or procedure <the laws of poetry>


4

: the whole body of laws relating to one subject


5

a : the legal profession

b : law as a department of knowledge : jurisprudence

c : legal knowledge

6

a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions

b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions
— at law


: under or within the provisions of the law <enforceable at law>

 

[PRB]

While I get the idea of not wanting to associate with the "odd balls" before you go throwing out insults a quick combing over the evidence and it becomes apparent the legal system is a complete fraud. you don't have to theorize about it either. if you care to look at any definition of law their is always a lack of mentioning consent, they do mention common consent but there is no such thing I cant consent for other people and other people cant consent for me ,its here by force ,or de facto means.
Also explain if there is no consent ,how it is not human trafficking for the use and benefit of another.
these are are just obvious examples I can get more detailed but lets work through the obvious ones first.

the legal system is a fraud because you didn't completely explicitly consent to it?

 

[tommyrp12]

yes, consent is paramount even in the context of their laws. think of it this way ,can I take out loans in your name or do any business in your name or make you contract against your will in any way ? no. they can have their private laws and make as many of them as they want , but the second they apply them to me against my will it becomes a crime. I am a human being with natural rights, making a living off of abducting people and even sentencing them to death for what ever the reason, is a violation of someone's rights to their own life. it does not matter how many people agree you should die or be subject to the same laws. they don't have the right to force you to do anything.
everyone is created equal, there's no getting around it. no one is born with any more rights than anyone else. there for there is no basis even in their laws that gives them a right to traffic other people. unless you consent but ,again you can only consent for your self.
if im wrong please tell me how you can make me consent for any of it, besides de-facto means and use of force or fraud.

 

[Acala]

yes, consent is paramount even in the context of their laws. think of it this way ,can I take out loans in your name or do any business in your name or make you contract against your will in any way ? no. they can have their private laws and make as many of them as they want , but the second they apply them to me against my will it becomes a crime. I am a human being with natural rights, making a living off of abducting people and even sentencing them to death for what ever the reason, is a violation of someone's rights to their own life. it does not matter how many people agree you should die or be subject to the same laws. they don't have the right to force you to do anything.
everyone is created equal, there's no getting around it. no one is born with any more rights than anyone else. there for there is no basis even in their laws that gives them a right to traffic other people. unless you consent but ,again you can only consent for your self.
if im wrong please tell me how you can make me consent for any of it, besides de-facto means and use of force or fraud.

You can make plenty of arguments that government power is not legitimate because it is not exercised by the consent of the governed and I will agree with you. In fact that idea is central to my political philosophy.

But there is nothing in the existing laws or institutions of this country that give an ounce of support to this idea nor will any court ever recognize it no matter what mumbo jumbo you recite. Being physically in the jurisdiction is ALL the "consent" a court requires. Even less than that, actually, as certain remote contacts with the jurisdiction will give the court authority over you.

 

[CPUd]

The National | Feb 29, 2012 | 19:27
A Canadian Concern?

Adrienne Arsenault with the eye-opening story of a US anti-government group and why Canada needs to be concerned.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/ID/2203936727/

 

[PRB]

yes, consent is paramount even in the context of their laws. think of it this way ,can I take out loans in your name or do any business in your name or make you contract against your will in any way ? no. they can have their private laws and make as many of them as they want , but the second they apply them to me against my will it becomes a crime.

Oh, so if I'm a criminal that likes to murder, steal and rape, and I don't recognize your right to tell me not to, you can't, since I didn't consent to your rules?

 

[tommyrp12]

Being physically in the jurisdiction is ALL the "consent" a court requires. Even less than that, actually, as certain remote contacts with the jurisdiction will give the court authority over you.

it sounds like a presumption that can be corrected on the record before hand. you have not addressed exactly how human trafficking was a enumerated power that people who were created equal could give to the government.

 

[PRB]

it sounds like a presumption that can be corrected on the record before hand. you have not addressed exactly how human trafficking was a enumerated power that people who were created equal could give to the government.

who said we agreed humans are created equal?

 

[tommyrp12]

Oh, so if I'm a criminal that likes to murder, steal and rape, and I don't recognize your right to tell me not to, you can't, since I didn't consent to your rules?

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 .