Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
"initial claim that 'challenge jurisdiction' was the silver bullet "
Now your citing and quoting abilities can be of good use. I do believe that I said it was quite the opposite. I have warned people about antagonizing the court, and if they assert this they better be on terra firma when they do or they are getting torn a new asshole. In fact I might have typed those actual words but they were a negative example, prefaced by "People think" or something along those lines. There is no silver bullet unless you have solid law behind you. I don't claim anything to the contrary.
But you dismiss the idea just because the people who are learning about it don't know the whole thing yet and have difficulty expressing it, especially to you. I have warned them, I have stated that I don't think they are ready for anything like this. I have told them that they are getting excited like a kid in a candy store.
Well I am not a kid in a candy store. I know better and I don't get wrapped up into things that don't benefit me. I have seen it work, but it will only work under certain circumstances. I can't exhuastively describe ten years worth of law study and tutoring, if you can even get it, on an internet forum. Even in text, bandwidth would become a problem.
This is a very complicated subject that is obviously beyond you, and will remain so with your attitude. But that is not to say our resident "nutjobs" are ready for it either. You have to know MORE than a lawyer, who has spent years in school learning this shit. Some think that all they need is a packet in the mail, throw a couple fo forms in the mailbox and they can do whatever they want. That is simply not so. I never said it was.
And then there is another problem, if you actually successfully challenge jurisdiction in a city, the county or state could pick up the charge, and that is NOT desirable. In the very rare occurance that you may successfully challenge state jurisdiction the feds could step in, again not a good move, and THAT'S IF YOU WIN.
Actually I am no longer debating you Ken, I do reserve the right to use your posts as fodder to warn others that this is not a fucking video game. The consequenses are real. The odds are stacked against you. It can be done in some cases and you need to know which cases which is a totally different subject almost.
I understand the principles involved, but I admit I don't know all the details. This is not the time for on the job training. Your ass is on the line. Even if you want to throw it into the mix in court, it will not help you get leniency or anything, in fact quite the opposite. You have to dot every I and cross every T and even then, without the threat of something, no court will recuse itself from the case unless they have good reason. The plan is based on giving them good reason. Their trepidation must be raised for anything to work, otherwise they'll just take your money and possibly alot more.
What's more a silver bullet is no good if you can't aim it effectively. I dismissed the ens legis approach years ago, not summarily like you and some others, but because it will not work. Everybody dropped the no license thing because it simply does not work. Others can't get out of income taxes because of certain circumstances because it just won't work for them.
But your contention seems to be that nothing will work and the government's authority is absolute. Actually I don't agree, but their Achille's heel is that they don't want it made public. Do you understand that ? I have been trying to point this out to those such as Hunky and Real and they don't get it, so why should I expect it from you ? They have open minds at least, but sometimes don't understand that there is such a thing as too open. Like the front door. You can just crack it a bit and let the cat in, but if there's a moose out there and you happen to have some moose morsels, you don't open the door all the way. But if you shut it completely the kitty is stuck outside.
I have been to court more times than some people have been to the doctor. Things have been explained to me in person and in private. Why we can't do this and why we can't do that. I have smashed more cars than most people have had. I have been ripped off for everythbng I own more than once, without insurance. I've spent more money taking care of legal problems than most have spent for a lifetime of private medical insurance. I have done alot more too, if they locked me up for jaywalking for twenty years I would have nothing to whine about. I have been through the mill many times, and I'll remind you, in venues that are particularly tough. And yes, I know what you are going to say next - "Have I ever successfully challenged jurisdiction" and to that the answer is no. I didn't find it necessary.
The reason for that is because it was cheaper and easier to handle it other ways. All this is something I keep in my back pocket so to speak. And I recommend against these actions without a compelling reason. I don't trust anyone almost, at least completely. Nobody is competent enough for me to trust completely, even if I trust their motives, I can't trust their judgment.
In other words I am not stupid.
How about an analogy here. Let's assume (it is not true but for the sake of argument) that I know nothing about how an internal combustion engine works. But I got this dandy machine that is supposed to tell me whatever any problem is with your car. I use the machine and fix 100 cars a day. But would you trust me ? You should not. Most of my life I refused to have anything I could not fix myself, but that is now impossible. If I trust someone to work on my precious junk, I want to see more than a reciept from the big machine.
You have the big machine, what else you got ?
T
|
RE: Common Law and rights - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread