Lets start from the beginning

[Famspear]

.....to be governed means to be subject to the laws yes, not the common law that everyone is subject to, but the statutory, compelled to perform statutes. Most are non positive law, or prima facie law, which is a REBUTTABLE presumption. Only a law that does not apply to everyone can be a rebuttable presumption of law.

That is gibberish.

EDIT: I hasten to add, however, that I appreciate your mustering the courage to make an affirmative statement.

[LPC]

So we govern by consent then, I think Jefferson said it best. Governing by force would be North Korea type government.

Is anyone seriously suggesting we govern by force?

Btw in both types you have law breakers, that in no way means we govern by force.

As I predicted: Gibberish.

[Famspear]

You and I, PD, are subject to all the laws -- not just "common law." The following are examples of just some of the laws that apply to you (there will be some overlap here):

1. The U.S. Constitution, and related case law;

2. Statutes enacted by Congress, and related case law;

3. Treaties and other international laws to which the United States is a party, and related case law;

4. Common law, to the extent not modified, repealed, etc., by statutes, etc.;

5. Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, other rules of court -- and related case law;

6. Administrative law, such as regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies and departments -- and (you guessed it) related case law;

7. The Florida Constitution and related case law (since you're a resident of Florida);

8. The laws of Florida analogous to the federal laws in categories 2, 4, 5 and 6 (including -- shudder, gasp, gulp -- vehicle traffic laws);

9. Local municipal laws, etc.

[LPC]

.....to be governed means to be subject to the laws yes, not the common law that everyone is subject to, but the statutory, compelled to perform statutes. Most are non positive law, or prima facie law, which is a REBUTTABLE presumption. Only a law that does not apply to everyone can be a rebuttable presumption of law.

That is gibberish.

EDIT: I hasten to add, however, that I appreciate your mustering the courage to make an affirmative statement.

No, because an "affirmative statement" that is gibberish is no affirmative statement at all.

An "affirmative statement" must first be a statement, by which I mean that it must assert something that is demonstrably either true or false. (An "affirmative statement" would assert something that is true, while a negative statement would assert that something is false. However, both an affirmative statement and a negative statement would be demonstrably true or false.)

Gibberish is neither true nor false.

[LPC]

My position is all contracts require individual consent, and that society is based on the social contract.

The "social contract" does not require individual consent.

Along the lines of Individual vs collective consent I find no mention of Americans giving collective consent to be governed, nor any mechanism to implement a collective consent.

See Article VII of the Constitution of the United States, and the resolution of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that was unanimously adopted on September 17, 1787.

Early Americans equated individual consent with consent through elected representatives.

Then there's no dispute.

[Famspear]

No, because an "affirmative statement" that is gibberish is no affirmative statement at all.

An "affirmative statement" must first be a statement, by which I mean that it must assert something that is demonstrably either true or false. (An "affirmative statement" would assert something that is true, while a negative statement would assert that something is false. However, both an affirmative statement and a negative statement would be demonstrably true or false.)

Gibberish is neither true nor false.

Logic! Logic!

And all I wanted to do was to try to reach out to PD, as a kinder, gentler, more sensitive kinda guy.....

..............which is just the kind of guy I am......

[Gregg]

Tell you what professor, perhaps you could direct me to someone that shares this belief of collective consent to the social contract.

There's a signed list of them at the bottom of The United States Constitution, the original is in Washington, D.C.

[Famspear]

The "social contract" does not require individual consent.

Uh oh. PD's not gonna like that.....

[LPC]

The "social contract" does not require individual consent.

Uh oh. PD's not gonna like that.....

Oh dear.

I don't know if I'll be able to sleep a wink tonight, with that fear preying on my mind.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Sweet, the social contract does not need individual consent or so you say. Just link something that backs your belief.

[Patriotdiscussions]

.....to be governed means to be subject to the laws yes, not the common law that everyone is subject to, but the statutory, compelled to perform statutes. Most are non positive law, or prima facie law, which is a REBUTTABLE presumption. Only a law that does not apply to everyone can be a rebuttable presumption of law.

That is gibberish.

EDIT: I hasten to add, however, that I appreciate your mustering the courage to make an affirmative statement.

No, because an "affirmative statement" that is gibberish is no affirmative statement at all.

An "affirmative statement" must first be a statement, by which I mean that it must assert something that is demonstrably either true or false. (An "affirmative statement" would assert something that is true, while a negative statement would assert that something is false. However, both an affirmative statement and a negative statement would be demonstrably true or false.)

Gibberish is neither true nor false.

If you can not prove if my statement about prima facie law is true or false then your not as bright as you hoped.

[JamesVincent]

He who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation.

[Famspear]

If you can not prove if my statement about prima facie law is true or false then your [sic] not as bright as you hoped.

Dan Evans is light years ahead of you in brightness, my boy.

And we're not here to "prove" whether a statement you make is true or false. We're here to explain the law, and to expose scams.

Your statement is gibberish in part because it's not properly constructed and, in part, because you don't understand the legal terms you used in the specific context in which you used them.

The term "prima facie" when used to refer to a statute in the way you have done refers to the effect of referring to a particular publication of the law. The term "non-positive law" when used in the way you have done refers to an aspect of the status of the particular, actual physical document (or, in the internet age, perhaps the on-line version of same).

Let's look at the Internal Revenue Code as an example.

The "Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended" as published in the many physical paper volumes of the United States Statutes at Large is what we call "positive law."

The physical, paper object known as "Title 26 of the United States Code" -- which also happens to be called the "Internal Revenue Code", is what we call "non-positive law." This is a separate publication from the United States Statutes at Large.

However, except for one known typographical error in certain publications of "Title 26 of the United States Code" (if I recall correctly, in section 6104), the two texts are in relevant part IDENTICAL, right down to the last comma and period.

Under the law, "Title 26 of the United States Code", also known as the "Internal Revenue Code" is prima facie evidence of what is in the "Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended" as published in the United States Statutes at Large. That means that THE PERSON CLAIMING THAT THERE IS SOME SORT OF DISCREPANCY between the two has the burden of coming forward with evidence of the discrepancy. IF YOU DO NOT DO THAT, AND YOU DO NOT CONVINCE THE COURT THAT YOU ARE RIGHT, then blabbering with terms like "prima facie" and "non-positive law" is pointless.

Earth calling: The term "non-positive law" does NOT MEAN "NOT THE LAW." The term "prima facie" does not mean "not the law."

Further, many lawyers and judges don't even use these two publications. Many lawyers and judges use publications of these laws from private publishing companies, such as CCH, West, and so on.

THE SAME IS TRUE OF CASE LAW. Most lawyers and judges use re-prints of court cases from private publishing companies rather than the official copies issued by the courts. GENERALLY, NO ONE CARES --EXCEPT FOR CLUELESS AMATEURS.

Whether the actual physical document you are using (or the on-line version, if you're on-line) is "positive law" or, alternatively, "non-positive law" is irrelevant about 99.999999% of the time.

[Famspear]

So, tell us PD, did you win your traffic court case?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qEe_zW5kmA

Even with all the mistakes you made, I think you did better than most other non-lawyers would have done.

[Famspear]

In this one, PD talks about "certificates of origin," as he did in some of his early posts here at Quatloos.

At about the nine minute mark, he starts getting really intense.

ooooooooooo........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bta4QNICRxQ

[wserra]

Sweet, the social contract does not need individual consent or so you say. Just link something that backs your belief.

Don't have time to discuss political philosophy with a goal-shifting nitwit. Read John Locke - the stalwart of government by consent - on "tacit consent". For most people, the concept is pretty clear.

[Patriotdiscussions]

If you can not prove if my statement about prima facie law is true or false then your [sic] not as bright as you hoped.

Dan Evans is light years ahead of you in brightness, my boy.

And we're not here to "prove" whether a statement you make is true or false. We're here to explain the law, and to expose scams.

Your statement is gibberish in part because it's not properly constructed and, in part, because you don't understand the legal terms you used in the specific context in which you used them.

The term "prima facie" when used to refer to a statute in the way you have done refers to the effect of referring to a particular publication of the law. The term "non-positive law" when used in the way you have done refers to an aspect of the status of the particular, actual physical document (or, in the internet age, perhaps the on-line version of same).

Let's look at the Internal Revenue Code as an example.

The "Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended" as published in the many physical paper volumes of the United States Statutes at Large is what we call "positive law."

The physical, paper object known as "Title 26 of the United States Code" -- which also happens to be called the "Internal Revenue Code", is what we call "non-positive law." This is a separate publication from the United States Statutes at Large.

However, except for one known typographical error in certain publications of "Title 26 of the United States Code" (if I recall correctly, in section 6104), the two texts are in relevant part IDENTICAL, right down to the last comma and period.

Under the law, "Title 26 of the United States Code", also known as the "Internal Revenue Code" is prima facie evidence of what is in the "Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended" as published in the United States Statutes at Large. That means that THE PERSON CLAIMING THAT THERE IS SOME SORT OF DISCREPANCY between the two has the burden of coming forward with evidence of the discrepancy. IF YOU DO NOT DO THAT, AND YOU DO NOT CONVINCE THE COURT THAT YOU ARE RIGHT, then blabbering with terms like "prima facie" and "non-positive law" is pointless.

Earth calling: The term "non-positive law" does NOT MEAN "NOT THE LAW." The term "prima facie" does not mean "not the law."

Further, many lawyers and judges don't even use these two publications. Many lawyers and judges use publications of these laws from private publishing companies, such as CCH, West, and so on.

THE SAME IS TRUE OF CASE LAW. Most lawyers and judges use re-prints of court cases from private publishing companies rather than the official copies issued by the courts. GENERALLY, NO ONE CARES --EXCEPT FOR CLUELESS AMATEURS.

Whether the actual physical document you are using (or the on-line version, if you're on-line) is "positive law" or, alternatively, "non-positive law" is irrelevant about 99.999999% of the time.

Why is title 41 positive law in the usc but not title 26? If the statutes at large and the code are identical, you say one is positive, the other is not, then what EXACTLY makes the positive titles in the code positive other then them matching the statutes at large?

[arayder]

It seems to me we are having to explain the law, the Constitution, U.S. history and government to a guy who offers classes in which he tells attendees how and why the government works.

The student doesn't seem to really want to learn.

Isn't this akin an auto mechanic telling you he doesn't need to change the oil and oil filter in your car even though it's been 10,000 miles since the last change and the oil on the dipstick looks like it came out of a coal slurry.

[Patriotdiscussions]

So, tell us PD, did you win your traffic court case?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qEe_zW5kmA

Even with all the mistakes you made, I think you did better than most other non-lawyers would have done.

Yes sir I did, and helped two other friends out of different tickets since then as well.

1. Speeding camera ticket
2. Object covering license plate ticket.

My fav parts are at the beginning when the hearing officer said I could not have a recording device because it was against the law, and when I asked what law he could not tell me.

My other fav part was asking if anyone had knowledge of how the cameras worked or the chain of evidence for the photos.

Before going to court that day, I had a long talk with the officer in charge of the red light cameras, he was so upset I was fighting the ticket and swore up and down I would not win, lol.

[Pottapaug1938]

Until PD starts stating his rationales for his threads (both this one and the one preceding it), he deserves no response from anyone.