Lets start from the beginning

[noblepa]

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

Yes, that would be me and the vast majority of people in the United States of America.

I firmly share this belief, as well.

BTW, the mechanism for collective consent is your continued presence in the United States. If you don't wish to be bound by US statutory law, go somewhere else, or enter the political fray to change the statutes that you believe are unjust or misguided. Good luck findind a place where you can indivually opt out of the local statutes. I hear Somalia is very nice this time of year.

[noblepa]

.....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.

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

IANAL, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Its true that many statutes that are quoted are not "positive law". Take, for example, the tax code, Title 26. It is true that congress never voted on and the President never signed Title 26, as a whole. However, every word of it is contained in various individual bills that WERE passed by congress and signed into law (I suppose a few may have become law without the President's signature). The various Titles are compiled to make it easier for practitioners (and citizens, for that matter) to find and understand the law.

You are right that such a Title is prima facie law. However, to quote Inigo Montoya, "you use that word, but I do not believe it means what you think it means". My understanding is that prima facie means that something is presumed to be true, but that WITH SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, it can be rebutted in court. If you are accused of violating Title 26, you can argue that Title 26 does not reflect the words or intent of congress when they passed the underlying bill. However, the burden of proof is on you. Simply arguing that congress never passed Title 26 as a whole will not cut it. This goes for all the other Titles, as well.

The lawyers here will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that lawyers or the courts ever use the phrase "postive law". This is almost entirely a canard put forward by the TP's and sovcits.

[Patriotdiscussions]

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?

1. Not sure how Jefferson's private property has anything at all to do with how the country is governed.

2. Nope, if you read the treaties, inhabitants did not have to consent to be governed and could remain citizens of the old sovereign for a year, if they stayed on after that time, you then have tacit consent.

3. I'm saying those who gave consent to be governed must follow all laws including the embargo act or income tax act.

Clear enough?

[Patriotdiscussions]

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?

It was an admistravtive court in Orange County florida.

Granted I am still learning as I have only been studying this stuff part time for a little over a year, hence the questions and replies to flesh out the real information.

[Pottapaug1938]

1. Not sure how Jefferson's private property has anything at all to do with how the country is governed.

You said this: "Jefferson as president may have punished those who consented to be governed with force after breaking a law, however Jefferson never governed by force." Jefferson never tried to get laws passed emancipating all slaves, and permitted the forcible return to slavery of those who tried to escape it. That looks a lot like "govern[ing] by force."

2. Nope, if you read the treaties, inhabitants did not have to consent to be governed and could remain citizens of the old sovereign for a year, if they stayed on after that time, you then have tacit consent.

3. I'm saying those who gave consent to be governed must follow all laws including the embargo act or income tax act.

Like others who have raised this same contention here on Quatloos, you are wrong. By the act of remaining within the territory of the United States, you consent to be governed by the federal, state and local laws in force where you reside. You cannot exempt yourself from this jurisdiction by saying "I do not consent..."

[JamesVincent]

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.

In other words, you already know everything and, like multiple people have already pointed out, you are just here to troll.

I never fucked anybody over in my life didn't have it coming to them. You got that? All I have in this world is my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one. Do you understand? That piece of shit up there, I never liked him, I never trusted him. For all I know he had me set up and had my friend Angel Fernandez killed. But that's history. I'm here, he's not. Do you wanna go on with me, you say it. You don't, then you make a move.

[Pottapaug1938]

LPC supplied this excellent example of jurisdiction over someone who certainly did not voluntarily consent to it:

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=9878&p=168821&hili ... on#p168821

[Famspear]

I never fucked anybody over in my life didn't have it coming to them. You got that? All I have in this world is my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one. Do you understand? That piece of shit up there, I never liked him, I never trusted him. For all I know he had me set up and had my friend Angel Fernandez killed. But that's history. I'm here, he's not. Do you wanna go on with me, you say it. You don't, then you make a move.

--the Tony Montana character, portrayed by Al Pacino, in Scarface (1983); screenplay by Oliver Stone; directed by Brian De Palma.

Good movie. Great dialog by Oliver Stone.

mmmm.. and Michelle Pfeiffer was excellent, too.....

EDIT: I sort of think of the 1983 remake of Scarface as I do of Coppola's Apocalypse Now (1979), written mainly by John Milius. Both films are great, but the endings are a bit over the top.

Speaking of Milius: In 2010, Francis Ford Coppola interviewed him. Really interesting in my opinion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZswrVALi2M

EDIT 2: More on John Milius:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film ... ywood.html

[Famspear]

It was an admistravtive court in Orange County florida.

Granted I am still learning as I have only been studying this stuff part time for a little over a year, hence the questions and replies to flesh out the real information.

In presenting the judge with the copies of the texts of the various court cases that you believed supported your arguments (whether from Florida or other jurisdictions), you didn't need to ask the judge to take "judicial notice" of them. All you had to do was cite them. But, no big deal, and no harm done at all.

Do you know off the top of your head whether the judge in your case was actually licensed as an attorney himself? In some lower level courts in some states, the judge is not required to be an attorney (for example, justices of the peace in Texas).

[arayder]

1. Not sure how Jefferson's private property has anything at all to do with how the country is governed.

You said this: "Jefferson as president may have punished those who consented to be governed with force after breaking a law, however Jefferson never governed by force." Jefferson never tried to get laws passed emancipating all slaves, and permitted the forcible return to slavery of those who tried to escape it. That looks a lot like "govern[ing] by force."

2. Nope, if you read the treaties, inhabitants did not have to consent to be governed and could remain citizens of the old sovereign for a year, if they stayed on after that time, you then have tacit consent.

3. I'm saying those who gave consent to be governed must follow all laws including the embargo act or income tax act.

Like others who have raised this same contention here on Quatloos, you are wrong. By the act of remaining within the territory of the United States, you consent to be governed by the federal, state and local laws in force where you reside. You cannot exempt yourself from this jurisdiction by saying "I do not consent..."

This line of discussion started when I commented that there are those who wrongly revise history to make the Founders and the Framers into libertarian saints.

PD cried foul citing Jefferson as one such saint. When asked if Jefferson used force he said, no.

Now that he's busted he passes over Jefferson's reliance on and support for the system of enforced slavery by saying it was somehow a non-example because inside the system of enforce servitude Jefferson had slaves as private property.

Spoken like a good little slavery apologist!

Next he passes over the decimation of native american peoples by claiming the plains indians had an "out" in the fine print of the white man's treaties but just didn't take it!

Spoken like a good little genocide denier.

Then when faced with Jefferson's heavy handed regulation of private property (a practice PD abhors in the modern day) he says is was okay for Jefferson to go non-libertarian because 19th century American merchants were Americans.

The manipulative and underhanded side of Jefferson's personality would be proud.

[Famspear]

...when faced with Jefferson's heavy handed regulation of private property (a practice PD abhors in the modern day)...

Toward the end of his video about certificates of origin, etc., Patriotdiscussions mentions his theory that government cannot legally regulate "private" property. He is wrong.

[JamesVincent]

Toward the end of his video about certificates of origin, etc., Patriotdiscussions mentions his theory that government cannot legally regulate "private" property. He is wrong.

No, PD? Wrong? Couldn't possible be. Has to be something else.

All right, Beatrice, there was no alien. The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

[Patriotdiscussions]

It was an admistravtive court in Orange County florida.

Granted I am still learning as I have only been studying this stuff part time for a little over a year, hence the questions and replies to flesh out the real information.

In presenting the judge with the copies of the texts of the various court cases that you believed supported your arguments (whether from Florida or other jurisdictions), you didn't need to ask the judge to take "judicial notice" of them. All you had to do was cite them. But, no big deal, and no harm done at all.

Do you know off the top of your head whether the judge in your case was actually licensed as an attorney himself? In some lower level courts in some states, the judge is not required to be an attorney (for example, justices of the peace in Texas).

Traffic hearing officers are members of the bar here.

The volume was low but he acted like he was not going to look at them. I know other courts decisions in other jurisdictions have no weight, but I heard you throw up as much defense as you can and see what sticks.

IMHO the law is a bill of pains and penalties in that it 1. Is a legislative act that 2. Imposes a punishment (158 dollar fine) 3. On a person or group of people (registered owners) 4. Without judical over site (traffic court is adminastrative here).


As glad as I am that I beat the case, he does not have to, nor did he provide a reason for the case being dismissed. The reason for the decision is much more important to me then the decision itself.

[Patriotdiscussions]

1. Not sure how Jefferson's private property has anything at all to do with how the country is governed.

You said this: "Jefferson as president may have punished those who consented to be governed with force after breaking a law, however Jefferson never governed by force." Jefferson never tried to get laws passed emancipating all slaves, and permitted the forcible return to slavery of those who tried to escape it. That looks a lot like "govern[ing] by force."

2. Nope, if you read the treaties, inhabitants did not have to consent to be governed and could remain citizens of the old sovereign for a year, if they stayed on after that time, you then have tacit consent.

3. I'm saying those who gave consent to be governed must follow all laws including the embargo act or income tax act.

Like others who have raised this same contention here on Quatloos, you are wrong. By the act of remaining within the territory of the United States, you consent to be governed by the federal, state and local laws in force where you reside. You cannot exempt yourself from this jurisdiction by saying "I do not consent..."

And once again it all comes down to understanding where the United States end and the sovereign state of florida begins.

[JamesVincent]

And once again it all comes down to understanding where the United States end and the sovereign state of florida [sic] begins.

And, once again, it comes to your lack of understanding of any answer that any single person has given you.

[arayder]

1. Not sure how Jefferson's private property has anything at all to do with how the country is governed.

You said this: "Jefferson as president may have punished those who consented to be governed with force after breaking a law, however Jefferson never governed by force." Jefferson never tried to get laws passed emancipating all slaves, and permitted the forcible return to slavery of those who tried to escape it. That looks a lot like "govern[ing] by force."

2. Nope, if you read the treaties, inhabitants did not have to consent to be governed and could remain citizens of the old sovereign for a year, if they stayed on after that time, you then have tacit consent.

3. I'm saying those who gave consent to be governed must follow all laws including the embargo act or income tax act.

Like others who have raised this same contention here on Quatloos, you are wrong. By the act of remaining within the territory of the United States, you consent to be governed by the federal, state and local laws in force where you reside. You cannot exempt yourself from this jurisdiction by saying "I do not consent..."

And once again it all comes down to understanding where the United States end and the sovereign state of florida begins.

That's just another of your misdirections, PD. On the tape you are talking about the registration of automobiles in Florida, by the state of Florida.

So, in effect, you are arguing that no government has the authority to regulate private property.

This is in direct contradiction to the real political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson, whose state by the way, regulated private property!

[Patriotdiscussions]

This line of discussion started when I commented that there are those who wrongly revise history to make the Founders and the Framers into libertarian saints.

PD cried foul citing Jefferson as one such saint. When asked if Jefferson used force he said, no.

correct, no serious scholar is going to say because Jefferson had slaves that the United States was governed by force. Never said anything about the founders being saints, good strawman though.

Now that he's busted he passes over Jefferson's reliance on and support for the system of enforced slavery by saying it was somehow a non-example because inside the system of enforce servitude Jefferson had slaves as private property.

Spoken like a good little slavery apologist!

never said it was right, just said how the law looked at it back then

Next he passes over the decimation of native american peoples by claiming the plains indians had an "out" in the fine print of the white man's treaties but just didn't take it!

Spoken like a good little genocide denier.

see now your going into the law of conquest and capture, stuff I just recently began looking at and nothing your tax knowledge has ran across I am sure. Pontificate on it if you want, just don't expect someone to take you seriously when you talk about it. And I won't even blow your mind with the sovereign status of the Indians of the treaties of old. Btw my great grand mother was Virginia dare eagle, yours was?

Then when faced with Jefferson's heavy handed regulation of private property (a practice PD abhors in the modern day) he says is was okay for Jefferson to go non-libertarian because 19th century American merchants were Americans.

The manipulative and underhanded side of Jefferson's personality would be proud.

Are you trying to equate shippers involved in commerce as regular joes with private property? Man that is rich brother.

[Pottapaug1938]

And once again it all comes down to understanding where the United States end and the sovereign state of florida begins.

Look at the Constitution, for starters. As for the rest of your question, we've discussed the issue of "concurrent sovereignty" (or however you wish to state the concept) many times on other threads, so there's no need to do so again here.

[Patriotdiscussions]

And once again it all comes down to understanding where the United States end and the sovereign state of florida [sic] begins.

And, once again, it comes to your lack of understanding of any answer that any single person has given you.

Yes I know, the public school brainwashing of just taking someone at their word did not take hold. I need verified facts from many sources, not air from some guy on the Internet. Well unless I want my name on your forum of shame like the rest of those dimwits.

When I have satisfied my questions then I will go from there.

[Famspear]

IMHO the law is a bill of pains and penalties in that it 1. Is a legislative act that 2. Imposes a punishment (158 dollar fine) 3. On a person or group of people (registered owners) 4. Without judical over site (traffic court is adminastrative here).

It was hard to hear in the recording, but if I'm understanding you correctly, you were (and are) contending that the traffic law in question was/is a bill of attainder. That would be incorrect. A bill of attainder would be, essentially, a statute that identifies a person by name and effectively punishes the person without a judicial trial, or that is applicable to easily ascertainable members of a group and punishes those people without a judicial trial.

Further, the phrase "ascertainable group" does not mean "anyone who drives over the posted speed limit" or "anyone who fails to come to a complete stop."

If you think the Florida traffic law is a bill of attainder, you are reading 'waaaayy too much into the definition of a "bill of attainder."

As glad as I am that I beat the case, he [the judge] does not have to, nor did he provide a reason for the case being dismissed. The reason for the decision is much more important to me then the decision itself.

Yes, and my guess is that you put enough question in his mind as to whether you were actually the one driving the vehicle that he decided that the government had not proved its case.

As I said, I was impressed with the way you handled yourself. Many of your ideas about the law are incorrect, but you presented yourself -- and represented yourself -- more ably than a lot of other people would do in the circumstances. The fact that you came to court prepared may have impressed the judge as well.

I give you a hard time, PD, and you have a lot of incorrect beliefs about the law. But you see I also give you credit where I believe credit is due.