Lets start from the beginning

[Patriotdiscussions]

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.

Locke clearly states that one can only become a full member of society by an act of express consent (Two Treatises 2.122).

Tacit consent doctrine by Locke is his answer to those who do not expressly give consent say in writing, and is evidenced by us claiming domicile/legal residence, and makes perfect sense.

Most will understand tacit consent under its modern term implied consent.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent

[Patriotdiscussions]

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

And yet for the 15th time you felt compelled to respond and tell us this much, I think everyone gets it now, thanks.

[arayder]

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.

So according to you it was the same game you run here.

You ask questions and when the answers don't meet the preconcieved and impossible standards you have set in your mind you declare the law invalid, stick your nose in the air and walk off declaring yourself the winner.

That's rather childish, don't you think?

[Patriotdiscussions]

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.

Oh yeah btw tacit consent still requires the INDIVIDUAL to do something(as Locke pointed out) in order to give tacit consent.

[Pottapaug1938]

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

And yet for the 15th time you felt compelled to respond and tell us this much, I think everyone gets it now, thanks.

Everyone except you. You still haven't answered my questions.

[Patriotdiscussions]

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.

So according to you it was the same game you run here.

You ask questions and when the answers don't meet the preconcieved and impossible standards you have set in your mind you declare the law invalid, stick your nose in the air and walk off declaring yourself the winner.

That's rather childish, don't you think?

Not quite

When someone says something is the law, but yet can produce no law that says as much, it has nothing to do with what I think the law should be.

And no matter what you think, evidence used to prosecute someone has to have some Kind of chain of evidence to prevent tampering or such.

You can't just show up to court and say hey I got evidence, not really sure who all handled it or where it came from, etc.

Surely a legal scholar such as yourself knows this right?

[Patriotdiscussions]

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

And yet for the 15th time you felt compelled to respond and tell us this much, I think everyone gets it now, thanks.

Everyone except you. You still haven't answered my questions.

More then likely returning the favor of you not answering mine, but today is a new day, what were your questions?

[obadiah]

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.

Oh yeah btw tacit consent still requires the INDIVIDUAL to do something(as Locke pointed out) in order to give tacit consent.

Yes it does require something. Just don't break the laws or the force part will come into play. (with tacit consent to not whine about it when they catch you)

[arayder]

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.

So according to you it was the same game you run here.

You ask questions and when the answers don't meet the preconcieved and impossible standards you have set in your mind you declare the law invalid, stick your nose in the air and walk off declaring yourself the winner.

That's rather childish, don't you think?

Not quite

When someone says something is the law, but yet can produce no law that says as much, it has nothing to do with what I think the law should be.

And no matter what you think, evidence used to prosecute someone has to have some Kind of chain of evidence to prevent tampering or such.

You can't just show up to court and say hey I got evidence, not really sure who all handled it or where it came from, etc.

Surely a legal scholar such as yourself knows this right?

Yes, quite.

Your game is to create doubt by asking endless questions you could answer for yourself had you the skill and the will to really learn.

You find people in uniform down at the court house and pepper them with questions. When they can't answer to your satisfaction you do your haughty Perry Mason impression and hum the theme music to the TV show under your breath.

You are living in a fantasy world, ole son.

[arayder]

. . . but today is a new day, what were your questions?

I'd like you to address the question you avoided yesterday, as to whether or not the Jefferson administration used force to apply the law. You inferred it did not.

By your own standards when someone implies something is a historical fact, but yet can produce no documentation that says as much, the implication has nothing to do with reality.

[Pottapaug1938]

Everyone except you. You still haven't answered my questions.

More then likely returning the favor of you not answering mine, but today is a new day, what were your questions?[/quote]

One last time, then. What reason do you have for starting threads with general openings such as this one? What is your purpose? What do you wish to obtain by starting the threads?

In this instance, you began the thread with "...what two ways can men govern other men?" Why do you care; and how does this have anything to do with the way that we are governed today?

[Patriotdiscussions]

A fantasy world were statutory tickets get dismissed because I don't know what I am talking about it seems.

Better then paying tickets like I have the last 20 years of doing what you consider to be the right way.

The funniest part of the whole red light camera ticket was the cop who got hit with one telling me to start a website to help people beat them... Lol

[Patriotdiscussions]

. . . but today is a new day, what were your questions?

I'd like you to address the question you avoided yesterday, as to whether or not the Jefferson administration used force to apply the law. You inferred it did not.

By your own standards when someone implies something is a historical fact, but yet can produce no documentation that says as much, the implication has nothing to do with reality.

Jefferson as president may have punished those who consented to be governed with force after breaking a law, however Jefferson never governed by force.

[arayder]

Wow, you beat a traffic ticket and your documentation is the film from a camera you pointed at the light fixture in the hopes the court would think it was turned off.

Then you made a YouTube out of it in the hopes of helping your legal information business.

The phrase "get a life" comes to mind.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Everyone except you. You still haven't answered my questions.

More then likely returning the favor of you not answering mine, but today is a new day, what were your questions?

One last time, then. What reason do you have for starting threads with general openings such as this one? What is your purpose? What do you wish to obtain by starting the threads?

In this instance, you began the thread with "...what two ways can men govern other men?" Why do you care; and how does this have anything to do with the way that we are governed today?[/quote]

What happens with me is someone or something says something, in order to check if it makes any kind of sense or to see what holes might be produced I ask questions.

If the answers make sense and are accurate with what I already know then I can go from there, if they are not then I can discard them.

As for today's thread, no man has any power over any other man unless given thru force or consent, same way today as it was thousands of years ago.

Power does not come from no where, it starts somewhere.

Now answer this, do I have the power to take your child if I (as in me) feel you are not treating them the right way?

I do not have that power do I?

Now how would I give a power I don't have to a creation of mine(state)?

[arayder]

. . . but today is a new day, what were your questions?

I'd like you to address the question you avoided yesterday, as to whether or not the Jefferson administration used force to apply the law. You inferred it did not.

By your own standards when someone implies something is a historical fact, but yet can produce no documentation that says as much, the implication has nothing to do with reality.

Jefferson as president may have punished those who consented to be governed with force after breaking a law, however Jefferson never governed by force.

So you are saying that Jefferson's slaves consented to their slavery?

Are you saying that the native people of the Louisiana Purchase consented to the rule of the great white father in Washington?

Are you saying the 1807 Embargo Act did not force the American shipping industry to keep their ships in port?

[Patriotdiscussions]

Wow, you beat a traffic ticket and your documentation is the film from a camera you pointed at the light fixture in the hopes the court would think it was turned off.

Then you made a YouTube out of it in the hopes of helping your legal information business.

The phrase "get a life" comes to mind.

No my documentation is the dismissal the court sent me or for non Internet stalkers always looking to put someone down they can check on the county clerks website.

The camera was there for review for myself and others.

[Famspear]

To answer your question about why some titles of the United States Code are "positive law" and others are "non-positive law": They are that way because Congress enacts them that way. The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended to date (which is actually the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended to date -- just a name change, basically) was not enacted as title 26 of the United States Code. By contrast, the current U.S. Bankruptcy Code was actually enacted as title 11 of the United States Code, so title 11 is "positive law" while title 26 is "non-positive law."

In some of the titles of the U.S. Code, such as title 42 if I recall, there actually are editorial modifications made to some sentences, so that the exact wording in the U.S. Code is not the same as the wording in the statute as actually enacted and printed in the Statutes at Large. This is often stuff such as changing the section references (because the section numbering system in the "Statutes at Large" version is different from the section numbering system in the U.S. Code). By the way: In title 26 of the U.S. Code, the section numbering system is the same as it is in the enacting provisions of the Internal Revenue Code scattered through the Statutes at Large.

The point that seems to sail right over the heads of certain people is that ALL FEDERAL STATUTES are enacted by Congress and are published in the United States Statutes at Large. ALL STATUTES IN THE UNITED STATES STATUTES ARE LARGE ARE "POSITIVE LAW."

It matters not whether a particular federal or state statute is printed somewhere as positive law, or non-positive law, or is printed on the back of a restaurant menu. If it's a verbatim re-print of the statute, then it's a verbatim re-print of the statute.

Why does Congress enact certain statutes directly into the United States Code, while enacting other statutes without doing that? Who cares?

I'm guessing that some of the copies of the court cases you provided to the judge in that traffic court case might have been downloaded from "unofficial" sources on the internet. If so, you were using the "case law" version of "non-positive law."

Getting back to your traffic court case: Don't get too excited, but I have to say that I was more impressed with your performance as a non-lawyer (even with the mistakes you made) than I was with the judge's performance. Was this a municipal court in Orlando?

[arayder]

Wow, you beat a traffic ticket and your documentation is the film from a camera you pointed at the light fixture in the hopes the court would think it was turned off.

Then you made a YouTube out of it in the hopes of helping your legal information business.

The phrase "get a life" comes to mind.

No my documentation is the dismissal the court sent me or for non Internet stalkers always looking to put someone down they can check on the county clerks website.

The camera was there for review for myself and others.

Oh, please. You advertise your legal information business and post your courtroom exploits on YouTube. Then when somebody sees your advertisement and views your YouTube you make yourself the victim and opine that you are being stalked.

[arayder]

I'd like you to address the question you avoided yesterday, as to whether or not the Jefferson administration used force to apply the law. You inferred it did not.

By your own standards when someone implies something is a historical fact, but yet can produce no documentation that says as much, the implication has nothing to do with reality.

Jefferson as president may have punished those who consented to be governed with force after breaking a law, however Jefferson never governed by force.

So you are saying that Jefferson's slaves consented to their slavery?

Are you saying that the native people of the Louisiana Purchase consented to the rule of the great white father in Washington?

Are you saying the 1807 Embargo Act did not force the American shipping industry to keep their ships in port?

Crickets. . . .