Jurisdiction evidence

[LPC]

Regardless of whether one believes the law can't apply to you without your consent, the definition of government is whoever has the legitimate use of force. Legitimate, in this case, is defined by the public in general and not by the individual.

travis would say that your reasoning is circular.

We define words based on how we use them, and we use words to describe the world as it actually exists. In the world as it actually exists, every citizen does not agree with every rule imposed by the government, and governments use force against those who act contrary to the rules imposed by the government.

People like travis want to believe that there is a concept of "government" and "law" that exists separate from reality. They want to define those words differently from what everyone else understands those words to mean, and then demand that we "prove" that our government and laws fit within their definition. (And they either don't tell us their definition, or they make up a definition that no government and no law could ever fit within.)

It's all just an exercise in fantasy.

So, wheres the evidence, OP? The evidence is that by posting here you have proven that you have enjoyed the benefits by government, and thus contracted with them through your implied consent. You see, the internet was a government funded project to begin with and you wouldn't have been able to post here if the government had not established that project. Thus, you benefited from a government service. Thus, you are subject to its laws. Don't like it? Fine with us - move to a place where you no longer enjoy the benefits of the US government. I hear Somalia is nice, if your into that kind of thing.

I sometimes call this "voting with your feet." If you don't like our government, you're free to leave, and by staying you are consenting.

You could argue that the very act of being born in this country is an acceptance of government benefits. Medical schools and hospitals are tax exempt organizations, which means that they were built with tax-deductible dollars, which is a form of government support (or "tax expenditure"). If your mother received any medical care before or during your birth, or if you received any medical care after birth, it was paid for in part by the government.

Does that health care bind you your entire life? No, as was said, you can leave. But travis (and others) shouldn't think that they burst full grown from their mother's forehead, or that they got where they are today completely on their own, with no government support.

[notorial dissent]

I think as much as anything, they want to torture and twist the definitions they do want to use to the point that no one can ever actually meet them so that they can turn around and smuggly say "Aha, told you you couldn't provide the "evidence" I wanted," and of course the question or whatever you want to call it is always structured so that there is no real way to answer it that will meet their demands. In other words, an exercise in pointlessness.

[JamesVincent]

In the world as it actually exists, every citizen does not agree with every rule imposed by the government, and governments use force against those who act contrary to the rules imposed by the government.

Lord knows there are a good number of things I believe are wrong with custody law, especially in states where they still give the mother custody no matter what. I fight against them when I can but in the end i have to obey them or the judge that sends down an order holds me in contempt. When in contempt judges have a lot of leeway in deciding how to purge it and if I'm in jail I don't think it will look very good for my fight. So I obey them to the best of my ability, whether I believe their "right" or not and continue the fight another day in a different way. I'm pretty positive I know how well it would go if I told the court that their rules do not apply to me because I don't allow them to or I didn't "consent" to them.

[rogfulton]

Let's go back and review some things (again )

Travis has accepted the following as facts; thereby evidence according to his definition:

Come again? How is a random fact evidence for anything? If I say that the sky is blue (fact) is proof that you owe me $5000, would you pay up? Aren't you missing the relevant, hence not fallacious, aspect of this?

This post actually sounds like something Rassy would spew.

[Dr. Caligari]

For examples of evidence look at murder trials. Oddly they sometimes deal with evidence from time to time.

I asked you this upthread, and you didn't answer:

Can you give me evidence that it is illegal to murder you?

....(crickets).....

Brave Sir travis bravely ran away...

[wserra]

Brave Sir travis bravely ran away...

You threatened to cut his head off with a chainsaw. Moreover, you tell everyone in every post that they must become you. Poor travis probably vass haffing ein nachtmare about a horde of Quatloosians chasing him with chainsaws.

Not that he doesn't deserve it, you understand.

[Pottapaug1938]

For examples of evidence look at murder trials. Oddly they sometimes deal with evidence from time to time.

I asked you this upthread, and you didn't answer:

Can you give me evidence that it is illegal to murder you?

....(crickets).....

Brave Sir travis bravely ran away...

...thus earning a permanent rank of Drive-By Troll, I think.

[stija]

@travis,

Declaration of Independence explains that your consent is needed. Consent can be explicit, or implicit. Explicit consent is asking for a privilege, such as residency. Once you become resident through some voluntary action of your own, then you consented to all the legal evidence (statutory language) of the sovereign who granted you residence. People usually become residents to get free schooling, driver license, etc.

You can also become a resident implictly, or be born a citizen, which is also an implicit consent. You can renunciate it, and then you become and inhabitant or a transient foreigner in law. If you do this, or if you never consent to anything, you are, as i stated above, a foreigner in your own country. Well it is not your own anymore, but you get the point.

If you are a foreigner, inhabitant, or stranger, you still have all of your inherent natural/sovereign rights. However, you enjoy no legal rights. You can't work publicly for the state, you can't get a driver license, etc. If you go to higher education school (basic schools have been monopolized/institutionalized by gov't indoctrination agendas) you will pay nonresident fees, etc. You get the point.

Now, you want evidence of this right? Well the ninth circuit court of appeals just ruled on SB1070 that illegals (no legal status) still have first amendment protected rights to contract for labor and work within Arizona, and that contracting for work is completely lawful in Arizona. I doubt that any of them realize the importance of the decision, as i am sure the second they get a chance they will abandon their illegal status for a legal one (and consent to all the laws).

The ca9 decision is: No. 12-15688

SCOTUS has long recognized natural rights of all inhabitants, whether stranger or citizens, and has said on this topic in Carlisle v. United States:

"The rights of sovereignty," says Wildman in his Institutes on International Law, [Footnote 7]
"extend to all persons and things not privileged that are within the territory. They extend to all strangers therein, not only to those who are naturalized and to those who are domiciled therein, having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent residence, but also to those whose residence is transitory. All strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within his territories, and owe a temporary allegiance in return for that protection."
By allegiance is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation or it may be a qualified and temporary one. The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign. The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence.

Therefore, even as an illegal you still have to abide by the criminal code - do no harm, put no one at risk, and basically don't infringe upon others rights. The epitome of liberty! But good luck functioning in a society that abandoned their natural rights for legal rights that are regulated through all the statutes and codes in relation to the legal rights in question.

So, to answer your question, if you are a resident, citizen or any other legal status such as alien, student alien visa, etc, all the laws of the sovereign that granted you that legal status will apply in respect to your status - ie resident, citizen, alien, etc.

Arizona legally recognizes inhabitants in ARS 1-215, I believe, and thus you could be an inhabitant of the city of phoenix in which case all phoenix city code will be binding, you having consented to it by accepting the legal privileged status.

Or you could be illegal and wait by Home Depot for someone to pick you up.

In either case, citizen is not a bad status to be, if you are one. You have just exchanged some of your natural rights for the right to vote, sit on a grand jury and be a juror in a trial. EXERCISE THEM! Please do.

[Famspear]

@travis,

Declaration of Independence explains that your consent is needed. Consent can be explicit, or implicit. Explicit consent is asking for a privilege, such as residency. Once you become resident through some voluntary action of your own, then you consented to all the legal evidence (statutory language) of the sovereign who granted you residence. People usually become residents to get free schooling, driver license, etc.

You can also become a resident implictly, or be born a citizen, which is also an implicit consent. You can renunciate it, and then you become and inhabitant or a transient foreigner in law. If you do this, or if you never consent to anything, you are, as i stated above, a foreigner in your own country. Well it is not your own anymore, but you get the point.

If you are a foreigner, inhabitant, or stranger, you still have all of your inherent natural/sovereign rights. However, you enjoy no legal rights. You can't work publicly for the state, you can't get a driver license, etc. If you go to higher education school (basic schools have been monopolized/institutionalized by gov't indoctrination agendas) you will pay nonresident fees, etc. You get the point.

Now, you want evidence of this right? Well the ninth circuit court of appeals just ruled on SB1070 that illegals (no legal status) still have first amendment protected rights to contract for labor and work within Arizona, and that contracting for work is completely lawful in Arizona. I doubt that any of them realize the importance of the decision, as i am sure the second they get a chance they will abandon their illegal status for a legal one (and consent to all the laws).

The ca9 decision is: No. 12-15688....

That would be Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting. From the syllabus:

The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction barring the enforcement of two provisions in Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070, which make it unlawful for a motor vehicle occupant to hire or attempt to hire a person for work at another location from a stopped car that impedes traffic, or for a person to be hired in such a manner.

The panel held that the district court correctly determined that, though Arizona has a significant government interest in promoting traffic safety, the day labor provisions failed the requirement set forth in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 566 (1980), that restrictions on commercial speech be no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits and that the other requirements for a preliminary injunction were satisfied.

From syllabus for Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, case no. 12-15688, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, summarizing Court's opinion docketed March 4, 2013.

[Arthur Rubin]

Declaration of Independence explains that your consent is needed.

The Declaration of Independence has no relevance to law.

[stija]

Declaration of Independence explains that your consent is needed.

The Declaration of Independence has no relevance to law.

1. http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/organiclaws.txt
2. You must like being consistently wrong.
3. Are you suggesting one can become a citizen or resident without some voluntary consensual action on his part?

[Pottapaug1938]

Declaration of Independence explains that your consent is needed.

The Declaration of Independence has no relevance to law.

1. http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/organiclaws.txt
2. You must like being consistently wrong.
3. Are you suggesting one can become a citizen or resident without some voluntary consensual action on his part?

1. The Declaration of Independence has no legal force in the United States.
3. Yes, as far as citizenship goes -- just look at the 14th Amendment. Arguably, the latter can happen (in the case of a prisoner who is imprisoned in a state where he/she has never lived before).

[stija]

1. The Declaration of Independence has no legal force in the United States.
3. Yes, as far as citizenship goes -- just look at the 14th Amendment. Arguably, the latter can happen (in the case of a prisoner who is imprisoned in a state where he/she has never lived before).

1. LOL.
2. What happened to 2.?
3. If gov't able to declare citizen, gov't would be able to declare terrorist, taxpayer, etc.
4. LOL again.

[Pottapaug1938]

1. The Declaration of Independence has no legal force in the United States.
3. Yes, as far as citizenship goes -- just look at the 14th Amendment. Arguably, the latter can happen (in the case of a prisoner who is imprisoned in a state where he/she has never lived before).

1. LOL.
2. What happened to 2.?

Not worth my time for a response.

[stija]

Not worth my time for a response.

1. Please don't ever again.
2. It's said how legally ignorant you are.
3. Really really saaaad.

[Pottapaug1938]

Not worth my time for a response.

1. Please don't ever again.
2. It's said how legally ignorant you are.
3. Really really saaaad.

If you don't like #1, tough. I'm not going anywhere; but I'm not going to engage you in debate again for reasons already known to you, and which are apparent in your resonse here.

[stija]

If you don't like #1, tough. I'm not going anywhere; but I'm not going to engage you in debate again for reasons already known to you, and which are apparent in your resonse here.

1. I undertand 1.
2. You may want to contact uscode.house.gov and tell them they made a mistake.

[Dr. Caligari]

You can also become a resident implictly, or be born a citizen, which is also an implicit consent. You can renunciate it, and then you become and inhabitant or a transient foreigner in law. If you do this, or if you never consent to anything, you are, as i stated above, a foreigner in your own country. Well it is not your own anymore, but you get the point.

If you are a foreigner, inhabitant, or stranger, you still have all of your inherent natural/sovereign rights. However, you enjoy no legal rights. You can't work publicly for the state, you can't get a driver license, etc. If you go to higher education school (basic schools have been monopolized/institutionalized by gov't indoctrination agendas) you will pay nonresident fees, etc. You get the point.

**************


SCOTUS has long recognized natural rights of all inhabitants, whether stranger or citizens, and has said on this topic in Carlisle v. United States:

"The rights of sovereignty," says Wildman in his Institutes on International Law, [Footnote 7]
"extend to all persons and things not privileged that are within the territory. They extend to all strangers therein, not only to those who are naturalized and to those who are domiciled therein, having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent residence, but also to those whose residence is transitory. All strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within his territories, and owe a temporary allegiance in return for that protection."
By allegiance is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation or it may be a qualified and temporary one. The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign. The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence.

[bolding added by Dr. Caligari]


Therefore, even as an illegal you still have to abide by the criminal code - do no harm, put no one at risk, and basically don't infringe upon others rights. The epitome of liberty! But good luck functioning in a society that abandoned their natural rights for legal rights that are regulated through all the statutes and codes in relation to the legal rights in question.

So, to answer your question, if you are a resident, citizen or any other legal status such as alien, student alien visa, etc, all the laws of the sovereign that granted you that legal status will apply in respect to your status - ie resident, citizen, alien, etc.

stija, your own quote contradicts your conclusion. Even if you are an "alien" (and you aren't, because of the 14th Amendment, but let's leave that aside), the Supreme Court said that while an alien is here, he owes our government "a temporary allegiance" as long as he's here. That is not limited to "abid[ing] by the criminal code," it means you have to abide by all of the laws. Including not just the criminal code, but also the tax code, the traffic code, and every other statute, code and rule.

[stija]

stija, your own quote contradicts your conclusion. Even if you are an "alien" (and you aren't, because of the 14th Amendment, but let's leave that aside), the Supreme Court said that while an alien is here, he owes our government "a temporary allegiance" as long as he's here. That is not limited to "abid[ing] by the criminal code," it means you have to abide by all of the laws. Including not just the criminal code, but also the tax code, the traffic code, and every other statute, code and rule.

1. Stija not an alien.
2. Stija a citizen of Arizona under civil laws of this union and a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States under the U.S. Constitution.
3. How can an illegal abide by civil laws when by definition he is illegal - no legal status.
4. Explain 3. to yourself quietly in a corner and you will know the answer to what they owe allegiance and how.
5. If you wish to discuss sovereignty, post a new thread in an appropriate forum.
6. Poster asked about jurisdiction.
7. Stija explained jurisdiction involves voluntary consent of the governed; implicit or explicit.

[Dr. Caligari]

1. Stija not an alien.
2. Stija a citizen of Arizona under civil laws of this union and a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States under the U.S. Constitution.

Glad to see you finally admit that, after previously denying it.

3. How can an illegal abide by civil laws when by definition he is illegal - no legal status.

If an illegal alien drives down the street on the wrong side of the road, he is civilly liable, notwithstanding his illegal status. If an illegal alien works in this country illegally, he owes income tax, not withstanding his illegal status. I could give you 10,000 more examples.

4. Explain 3. to yourself quietly in a corner and you will know the answer to what they owe allegiance and how.
5. If you wish to discuss sovereignty, post a new thread in an appropriate forum.

stija doesn't get to make the rules here.